Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE (STAFF TRANSFER)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he has any statement to make on the proposals to transfer the staff of his Ministry to Newcastle-on-Tyne.

The Minister of National Insurance (Sir William Jowitt): Discussions with regard to the location of certain groups of staff which will in due course be transferred to my Department are now proceeding with representatives of the staff. On the matter generally, I would refer to the reply given on the 5th inst. by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Major Conant).

Captain Gammans: Do I understand from that reply that no final decision has yet been reached, with regard to the transfer of my right hon. Friend's Department to Newcastle?

Sir W. Jowitt: No final decision has yet been reached.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Whatever decision is ultimately come to, if it involves a permanent transfer of the staff to Newcastle or wherever is may be, will the Minister see to it that the utmost sympathy is given to cases of hardship?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir, certainly; in so far as location at any new place involves inconvenience and hardship, as in many cases is inevitable, we shall certainly do

our best to lessen that inconvenience and hardship, but I think it would be wrong to give up the idea of change of location simply because it involves some hardship in the first instance.

Mr. Astor: Is this to be a permanent transfer, or is it a war-time measure because of housing shortage?

Sir W. Jowitt: Nothing has been decided at present, but what is being canvassed is in the nature of a permanent transfer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Personnel (Political Rights and Activities)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the memorandum recently issued by his Department concerning the political rights and activities of Army personnel.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): This memorandum does not purport to deal with the political rights and activities of Army personnel generally. It embodies various instructions issued on this subject since the beginning of the war, and covers the concessions announced by me in the Debate on this year's Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill on 31st March last. It also simplifies somewhat the procedure for intending or prospective candidates. Further facilities, especially for those serving overseas, are in process of arrangement in anticipation of the next general election and will be notified in due course.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to place a copy of this memorandum in the Library?

Sir J. Grigg: It is already there.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the recent A.C.I., forbidding the signature of public petitions, circulars, and appeals dealing with political matters, implies an interpretation of the relevant paragraphs in King's Regulations more restrictive than previous interpretations; and, if in order to encourage soldiers to take an interest in Parliamentary democracy and in the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship by permitting a reasonable freedom of political action, he will cause this Instruction to be withdrawn.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to both parts of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Driberg: Did not the Prime Minister make it clear in this House last year that soldiers were allowed to write to newspapers signed articles, or letters, even on political matters, so long as these did not contain propaganda for particular parties? Is not this A.C.I. therefore a modification of that position?

Sir J. Grigg: I should have thought that was a pretty free translation of what the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Driberg: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of HANSARD containing what the Prime Minister said, will he study it?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think it is necessary. I am quite well aware of it.

Education Officer (Appointment)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the educational qualifications of an officer of the Royal Corps of Signals who joined the staff of the Education Officer-in-chief M.E.F. last May to organise vocational education in preparation for the demobilisation period; and if this officer is still employed on this work.

Sir J. Grigg: Particulars of this appointment are being obtained from the Middle East.

Artillery Units (Mention)

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is still a hold-up of the mention of artillery units of the B.L.A. since landing in France; how many units have been mentioned; and will he consider releasing descriptions of actions showing the effect of particular artillery actions as was occasionally done in Africa.

Sir J. Grigg: Seven units of the Royal Artillery have so far been released. As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, this is a matter for the Supreme Allied Commander. I understand that, provided there are no operational objections, his censors release stories submitted to them of actions in which artillery units have distinguished themselves.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encour-

age the issuing of the names of these units, or at any rate to prevent their being unreasonably withheld?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think there can be any excuse for that. I certainly have from time to time communicated with commanders-in-chief, and pressed them to publish as much as possible and not as little as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the present practice of referring to "X" batteries, and would he not give permission for the publication of these names?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not say they should be invariably published. Final decisions on these matters must be left to commanders-in-chief. I do not conceive my part in the matter is anything more than exhorting them to publish as much as possible.

A.T.S. Officers (Tropical Outfits)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the grant for tropical clothing given to A.T.S. officers going to India and S.E.A.C. does not cover the cost of purchasing the outfit of tropical clothes which his Department advises them to take; and will he take immediate steps to increase this grant to cover the minimum cost.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7th November.

Mr. Astor: Does my right hon. Friend think it right that A.T.S. officers going out there should have to pay, out of their own pocket, a substantial sum in order to get the clothes which his Department tells them are necessary in that climate?

Sir J. Grigg: As I said before, my Department does not tell them what is necessary, but advises them what it would be useful to take. In any case, if my hon. Friend will refer to my previous answer he will find the reasons given for the present practice.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that only people of private means can volunteer to go to India?

Sir J. Grigg: Practically no A.T.S. personnel have been sent to India on British account. A small number have been sent


out to help the Government of India, and they come under the Government of India Regulations.

Reconditioning Dump (Inquiry)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now completed his inquiries into the allegations of waste at a reconditioning dump in the South of England, to which his urgent attention was called on 9th October last.

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend will by now have received a letter giving him the result of the inquiry which was held into these allegations.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the Minister aware that even on the basis of the admission contained in that letter—which I cannot accept as complete—300 bedframes, some card-tables, upholstered easy chairs and at least 75 wooden boxes, complete with locks and each estimated to cost £3 15s. to make, were destroyed? Will he see to it that this sort of thing does not occur again?

Sir J. Grigg: The articles destroyed were almost completely unserviceable. I am informed that their possible value was as firewood. It may be that even firewood should have been preserved, but there is no question of anything in the nature of serviceable furniture having been destroyed.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the Minister aware that I questioned very thoroughly indeed more than 20 men working at this depot and that their evidence is completely divergent from that which the right hon. Gentleman has given?

Sir J. Grigg: That point has, of course, arisen on other occasions. I can only give the information which I obtain from the responsible officers of the unit, through their superior officers.

Mr. Bartlett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Overseas Service (Home Leave)

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the percentage of United Kingdom leave places allotted per regiment or battalion to our troops in the C.M.F. or Near East; and over how long

a period of time such allotment will be operative.

Sir J. Grigg: In his statement on 17th November the Prime Minister said that about 6,000 men a month would come home under this leave scheme. To give the detailed make-up of this figure would enable the enemy to make useful deductions about the strength of our forces overseas. It is left to the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief concerned to make suitable arrangements for choosing the individual men. No term has been fixed for the operation of this scheme but as the Prime Minister pointed out it may have to be stopped or modified for operational reasons.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there is anxiety from those who have got leave for long service from the distant war fronts, such as Burma and India, regarding their future posting; and will he make a statement upon it.

Sir J. Grigg: I am not very clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. A man who comes to this country on leave, not on repatriation, returns to the theatre where he came from when his leave is over. But this does not interfere with his right to be repatriated to this country when his time comes. A man who is repatriated is kept in this country for at least three months and is then again liable for service overseas, but only in North-West Europe, not in the more distant theatres.

Mr. Tinker: What I meant by the Question is this: Those men who come on leave, say from Burma or India, are not anxious to go back there without a period somewhere else. I was wondering whether the War Office had made arrangements to send them to some other place.

Sir J. Grigg: If they are given leave they go back to their theatre. If they are repatriated, they are at home for some time and then usually go to another front. Leave means that one returns to the theatre from which one came.

Officers' Deaths Abroad (Funeral Expenses)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the funeral expenses of officers who die on active ser-


vice are defrayed by his Department; and whether it makes any difference if the officer dies in India and not in any of the other theatres of operations.

Sir J. Grigg: An officer who dies abroad is normally buried under arrangements made by the military authorities at the expense of Army Funds, unless his relatives or other persons concerned prefer to make private arrangements. If private arrangements are made, the cost of the funeral is a charge against the officer's estate under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, but a grant is allowed from Army Funds towards those expenses. The second part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India and perhaps my hon. Friend would address a Question to him.

Welfare (India and S.E.A.C.)

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to improve and extend the entertainment facilities for troops taking part in the Burma campaign, especially by the provision of mobile cinemas; and whether he will arrange for E.N.S.A. shows to be given at Imphal in addition to Calcutta.

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the statement which the Prime Minister is making to-morrow on welfare in India and South East Asia Command.

Greece (Operations)

Mr. Cove: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any British troops who are sent to Greece will be limited to volunteers for that service.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Cove: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why men who are conscripted to fight Hitler are now being compelled to fight the Greek people?

Sir J. Grigg: The men were conscripted to carry out the orders given to them.

Mr. Bowles: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great mass of the British Army are a civilian Army, with very serious political ideas about what they are fighting the war about?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: What action is taken against men who refuse to fight on conscientious grounds?

Sir J. Grigg: I prefer not to answer what I believe to be an entirely hypothetical question.

Mr. Cocks: Would it not be a great advantage to have on our side a "sacred battalion" of Tory Fascists?

First Burma Campaign (Awards)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War what action was taken in regard to the despatch from the Commander-in-Chief, India, in respect of the first Burma campaign; and what decorations were awarded in accord with his recommendations.

Sir J. Grigg: The despatch received careful consideration by all concerned. One hundred and seventy-nine awards and 426 mentions in despatches were approved in respect of these operations, and have been announced in "The London Gazette."

Home Guard (Adjutants and Quartermasters)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) when the adjutants of Home Guard battalions will be restored to their units, in view of the fact that the employment for which they were seconded, namely training, has now ceased;
(2) what are the hours of adjutants and quartermasters of Home Guard battalions, in view of the fact that officers commanding companies of Home Guard battalions are busily employed during the day.

Sir J. Grigg: Officers commanding Home Guard units direct these officers to carry out their duties for such hours and at such times of the day as are required by the work to be done. The duties of Home Guard adjutants will end on 31st December. They are at present engaged in assisting in the considerable administrative work entailed by the standing down of the Home Guard.

Italy (Woollen Socks)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now satisfied that the supply of thick woollen socks to the troops in Italy is adequate; and whether the shortages in the unit, of which he has been advised, reported to him by cable on 11th December, have now been made good.

Sir J. Grigg: I received through the British Embassy in Rome peremptory instructions from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to send to a certain formation 10,000 pairs of thick socks from England by air. This was somewhat of a surprise to me as I know that there are reserves of thick socks in the theatre amounting to several millions of pairs, and, moreover, unit or formation commanders are usually very ready in asking for stores for their men if they think they are wanted and are available: However, I telegraphed to Italy and received the answer that this formation was well supplied with socks. The hon. Member has informed me that the unit commanders and the formation commander all told him that they were short. Obviously I shall clear up this apparent conflict of testimony as soon as possible. All I can say in the meantime is that I am assured that the holdings of thick socks in Italy were and are ample to provide for this formation.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was with the formation in question; that they complained of the shortage, and that they could not get adequate stocks, and that the telegram I sent him was not in the least peremptory, but was most courteous?

Sir J. Grigg: Of course standards differ. All I can say is that there is a conflict of testimony, and obviously it will have to be cleared up, and I shall clear it up.

Mr. Stokes: On this question of courtesy, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ambassador drafted the telegram?

Sir J. Grigg: I think I had better bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Ambassador in Rome is sending telegrams at public expense which ought not to be sent at public expense.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this allegation that our Ambassador in Italy sent a telegram to the War Office regarding military affairs? Is that the function of an Ambassador?

Sir J. Grigg: There is no question of allegation about it. The fact is correct

that the Ambassador sent, I presume at the instance of the hon. Member for Ipswich, a telegram on military affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE VOTERS (REGISTRATION)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War approximately what percentage of men have so far registered as voters in each of the following commands and formations: British troops Egypt, troops Sudan, Palbase, Ninth Army, Cyrenaica area, 3rd Corps, 56th (London) Division, 46th Division, Paiforce, Tripolitania area.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 12th December.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement on the progress of the registration of Service voters.

Sir J. Grigg: The registration of Service voters began last April and has been continuing ever since. At the time it started there was no ascertained target date in view by which it had to be completed, and conditions since then, including the invasion of the Continent, have not been very favourable to rapid progress being made. During the first fortnight of November a special effort was made to ensure the registration of individuals who had previously been missed, and returns were asked for showing the numbers by Commands of those who had elected not to sign the declaration form (A.F. B 2626), and for purpose of comparison the ration strengths of the units covered by the returns.
I am not at liberty to quote actual figures, but the returns so far received cover about 70 per cent. of the total ration strength of the Army, and can, I think, be taken as fairly representative of the whole. Between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. have not signed the declaration. The actual position is better than that percentage would suggest, because the ration strengths—the only figures readily available for purposes of comparison—include men under voting age and men who would not be residing in this country, if they were not serving, neither of which categories represent possible voters in 1945.
Considering, therefore, that the obtaining of these declarations has had to be carried out under war conditions in all parts of the world, I think the result is highly satisfactory. The process of registration is still continuing, and even those units which have up to now been at a disadvantage in the matter will be able to improve their figures before the Service register is closed.

Mr. Hogg: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of how the figures he has given relate to various commands at home and overseas, first as regards those who have sent in returns up to 70 per cent., secondly, about the nine or ten per cent. who failed to complete forms?

Sir J. Grigg: The only general indication I can remember offhand is that the percentage of failures is more than 10 per cent. in the very distant theatres and naturally less than 10 per cent. in the nearer theatres.

Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that all soldiers fighting in Greece have a chance to register?

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to deal with those commanding officers who fail to send in returns, or who send in unsatisfactory returns?

Sir J. Grigg: I have first to be convinced that any of them exist.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Repatriated Men (Leave)

Mr. Jewson: asked the Secretary of State for War what length of leave is granted to prisoners of war repatriated from Japanese prison camps.

Sir J. Grigg: As I said on 12th December in reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Down (Dr. Little) and Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) these men are given six weeks' leave when they arrive in this country.

Conditions, Far East

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a general statement regarding conditions in Japanese camps; the delivery of parcels to prisoners; and of letters to and from prisoners.

Sir J. Grigg: In view of the length of my answer and of the interest hon. Members have taken in this matter I will, with permission, Sir, give it at the end of Questions.
Later—

Sir J. Grigg: On 17th November I gave the House an account of the conditions and treatment in prisoner of war camps in Siam during 1942 and 1943 derived from preliminary information obtained from prisoners rescued by the United States Navy from the sea in September last. All the information received from the British prisoners has now been collated and a full account is available in the Vote Office. This account confirms the preliminary statement I made, as well as the more detailed one issued by the Australian Government at the same time, and there is no doubt that the Japanese military authorities decided to construct the railway and road between Siam and Burma with all speed and regardless of the conditions under which the prisoners worked and of the cost in human life.
It is difficult to speak with any certainty of the numbers involved, but the best estimate we are able to make indicates that not less than 60,000 white prisoners, the figure is probably much higher, worked on the railway and road, of whom the great majority were from the United Kingdom or Australia. In addition, many thousands of Asiatics were used and the death rate amongst them was almost certainly much heavier than amongst the white men.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can we have order while this very important statement is being made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's question has called attention to the fact that there is a lot of conversation going on round the House and I think it should cease.

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the position in Siam after the completion of the railway in October, 1943, careful sifting of the information available shows, I am glad to say, that conditions did improve somewhat. I should make it clear to the House that these conditions are far below anything which would be regarded as reasonable for our prisoners of war in Europe. The men have, however,


adapted themselves and become to some extent inured to these lower standards, while many of the conditions which caused such heavy sick and death rates in the jungle camps did not obtain in the rear camps to which the men were withdrawn. As a consequence there was apparently a very marked fall in the death rate and there is evidence to show that, on the whole, the prisoners were enjoying fair health and were in good spirits when the rescued men left Siam about July, 1944. In the rear camps round Banpong their huts were weather-proof, cooking and sanitary arrangements were hygienic, and there was some space and opportunity for exercise. We know that parties have gone from the rear camps to work in various parts of Siam, and we have no direct information regarding living or working conditions in those places. It has been ascertained that some of the limited Red Cross supplies which it has been possible to despatch reached these prisoners in Singapore from Lourenco Marques in 1942, and later, in Siam, supplies reached them from the Swiss Consul, Bangkok, whose funds for this purpose are provided by the British Red Cross War Organisation.
As I previously said, we have asked the Protecting Power to make the strongest possible protest regarding the past conditions in Siam and Burma. As to present conditions, we shall continue to press the Japanese to allow all camps in Siam and elsewhere to be inspected regularly by neutral observers, to make arrangements which will enable the Red Crass to send adequate relief supplies for all our prisoners, to improve the mail service to and from prisoners, and to notify within a reasonable period all casualties, past, present or future, affecting British prisoners of war.
May I repeat what I said to the House last Tuesday? The rescued men have shown themselves very willing and helpful in the long investigation; every scrap of information which they have given about their comrades in captivity or on the sunk transport is being sent to the next-of-kin concerned as soon as it has been sifted and checked. It would be unfair to relatives who have already suffered so much to send them information which had not been so scrutinized. I have great sympathy with the anxiety of relatives and of organisations of prisoners'

relatives to speak with these men in person, but the men are few and the relatives concerned are, unfortunately, many. I appeal to them not to impose on these men new and onerous burdens. We have all the information they can give us, and it will be passed on to the relatives concerned. If, therefore, relatives do not hear anything from us it is because there is unhappily nothing new to tell them.

Sir A. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the position with regard to prisoners' parcels and mails?

Sir J. Grigg: I gave my hon. and gallant Friend a long answer on those points only last week.

Captain Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the ships which are supposed to have left Vladivostock, with supplies, have actually sailed; and has he any information to give to the House with regard to the telegraphic service which he hoped to be able to fix up, and about which an announcement was made about a month ago?

Sir J. Grigg: I have nothing fresh beyond the information which I gave in answer to a Question last week by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox).

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very deep feeling that exists throughout the country, would the Minister assure the House and those interested that every conceivable step is being taken by his Department, and by the Foreign Office, to protect and care for the interests of prisoners in Japanese hands?

Sir J. Grigg: I can certainly give that assurance. It is a very constant preoccupation not only of the War Office and Foreign Office, but of every other Government Department concerned, and of the American authorities.

Mr. Edgar Granville: As the Minister knows, many of the rescued men have been on leave and have given certain information to next-of-kin about relatives who have died. The War Office have told these men that they must not give that information and relatives are, therefore, to be left in a state of uncertainty. Can he say whether information to the next-of-kin is now to be given officially?

Sir J. Grigg: To the best of my recollection, yes, subject to this: The information


we get from returned prisoners—there were only about 60 of them—is not passed on until a cross-check is applied. This is extremely important.

Miss Ward: Could my right hon. Friend say what kind of cross-checks he is able to apply, and how long relatives have to wait before the Department hands on the information which is obtained?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that most of the information has already been passed on.

Mr. John Dugdale: Are all the prisoners who have returned members of the Armed Forces, or were any of them civilian internees?

Sir J. Grigg: I think I am right in saying that the information I have given applies entirely to the camps for military personnel. As I said in my original answer last week, it does not apply to camps in the Northern part of the Far East theatre, or to civilians.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that sometimes the Foreign Office, sometimes the Secretary of State for War and sometimes the Minister of State make statements on questions relating to prisoners of war, he would consider setting apart one Minister whose sole preoccupation would be the interests of prisoners of war? I am sure it would give general satisfaction to relatives.

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise now.

Mr. Granville: May I put this further point, Mr. Speaker, as it is one of some importance? Some rescued men have informed next-of-kin that they have taken part in the funerals of their comrades. Is that information waiting to be cross-checked, or has it been conveyed to the next-of-kin?

Sir J. Grigg: If it is easy to verify immediately, it is passed on immediately, but if there is any question about the identity of the individual concerned it is, of course, cross-checked.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing (Construction Programmes)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the 1,000 houses authorised in the Spring of 1943 how

many are occupied, how many completed but not occupied, how many roofed over and how many are still at later stages of construction; and the comparable figures for the 1,000 houses authorised in the Spring of 1944.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The figures asked for are as follow:


1943 Programme


Occupied
…
155


Completed but not occupied
…
5


Roofed over or at later stages
…
410


Not yet roofed over
…
372




1944 Programme


Occupied
…
7


Roofed over or at later stages
…
4


Not yet roofed over
…
619


Despite the acute shortage of building labour I am informed that all the local authorities who received an allocation under the 1944 programme have started building. One of the unfortunate causes of retardation is that it has been felt necessary to assist in the repair of flying-bomb damage in the South. 2,300 Scots craftsmen are there engaged.

Mr. McNeil: While I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend has made about the transfer of labour to meet the flying bomb damage, may I ask him to explain why, apparently, some 370 houses, authorised more than 20 months ago, are still not roofed over?

Mr. Johnston: Does my hon. Friend mean the 1943 programme?

Mr. McNeil: Certainly.

Mr. Johnston: The answer is, obviously, shortage of labour. There is no other answer.

Mr. McNeil: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the flying bomb emergency had anything to do with this 1943 programme?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir. It was the retardation of the 1944 programme to which I was referring, in relation to flying bomb activity.

Mr. McNeil: Would it not have been better, if there is such a shortage of labour, to have completed the 1943 programme before starting the 1944 programme?

Mr. Johnston: It is obvious that flying bomb damage did not arise until the 1944 programme had been started.

Shipbuilding and Engineering Employment (Memorial)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the memorial on the possibility of unemployment in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, forwarded to him by the Corporation of Greenock; and what action upon it he proposes to take.

Mr. Johnston: I received last week the memorial referred to by my hon. Friend, and I understand that copies have been sent to other Ministers primarily concerned. The terms of the memorial have been noted, and will be considered in the application of the Government's plans for maintaining full employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Mineworkers (Recruitment and Training)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he has taken to improve the recruitment, training, and education of entrants to the mining industry; and whether he will consider the appointment of a qualified person to undertake this national responsibility.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The question of recruitment and training of boys for the mining industry was examined fully in 1942 by Sir John Forster's Committee, and, so far as war conditions allow, the recommendations of that Committee have been adopted. My right hon. Friend has appointed a Chief Inspector of Training, with 18 inspectors stationed in the regions, and the provisions of the Coalmining (Training and Medical Examination) Order have been in force since 1st February, 1944. As regards recruitment and education, both for the present and for after the war, my officers are working in close touch with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, but it is not possible, within the ambit of a Parliamentary Reply, to describe all the measures which are being taken and planned.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend working with three other Ministries? Am I to take it that he welcomes the advertisement by the Mining Association for an official such as I have described, with a salary of £2,000 a year, who is also to work with these other Departments; and who will be responsible?

Mr. Smith: I think that that appointment by the Mining Association is a matter for themselves. But, as I said, consultation with other Departments for post-war plans will arise largely out of the provisions of the Education Act.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there is very little value in training and educating entrants to the mining industry while it remains in its present disorganised state? Does he not see the necessity for first taking over the mines, and reorganising them?

Mr. Smith: Personally, whatever the state of the mining industry happens to be, I think that the training and education which are taking place are invaluable.

Joint Resources Board's Report

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will take steps to disclose confidentially to colliery managers and representatives of mineworkers in Great Britain the American Report on British Collieries.

Mr. T. Smith: No, Sir. Such a widespread distribution of the Report would not be consistent with the decision of the Government, announced by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 17th October.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Report has already been disclosed to a number of people, and no question of principle arises, could not the disclosure usefully be extended, in confidence, to more people engaged in the industry?

Mr. Smith: I am of the opinion that if you disclosed the terms of this Report to such a wide number of people as is suggested, it would be a secret no longer.

Mr. Leslie: Can we not have a copy of the Report in the Library?

Miss Ward: As the miners' leaders say that they have seen the Report, and as they use it for propaganda purposes, should not the mineowners also see the Report?

Mr. Molson: How is it possible for the coalmining industry to act on the recommendations of this Report if the Report is not available?

Mr. Smith: I appreciate that, but the decision not to publish was taken by the Government, for reasons given by my right hon. and gallant Friend some time ago.

Coal (Overseas Shipments)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the position regarding coal being sent overseas to the war fronts, and the effect it is having on home distribution.

Mr. T. Smith: Coal is being shipped overseas to the war fronts to meet operational needs and essential civilian needs, as determined by the military authorities, in so far as these cannot be met from indigenous production. In addition, some opencast coal is being shipped to North Africa. Provided rigorous economy in the use of fuel is exercised by consumers in this country, I consider that the assistance we are giving to our Forces overseas can be met, in addition to meeting our minimum home demands.

Mr. Tinker: Ought not the public to be made aware where the coal is going? The continued restrictions are hitting householders very hard, and they should know what is happening to the coal.

Mr. Smith: Although I cannot give quantities and places at the moment, it can be said that no coal is going overseas except what is absolutely essential.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the fact that coal is being sent to the war front, and stones are being reserved for the home front?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION GOVERNMENTS (INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the method used by his Department at the present time in keeping the Dominion Governments informed of

changes in policy on such questions as Colonial affairs, civil aviation, post-war shipping, and general war policy; and if he is satisfied that the present difficulties of communication enable such practice to work satisfactorily.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): There is a constant exchange of views and information with Dominion Governments on all matters of common concern, including the subjects referred to in the hon. Member's Question. This exchange is carried out by direct communications between Governments by telegram and mail, as well as through United Kingdom Representatives in the Dominions and Dominion Representatives in London. This system has proved generally satisfactory, though, of course, in time of war there must inevitably be occasions when the need for immediate action outstrips the machinery of consultation.

Mr. Granville: Were the representatives of the Dominion Governments in London consulted on Greek policy, or were they merely informed?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: They were kept constantly informed.

Mr. Shinwell: On the questions of post-war shipping and economic policy and migration, are negotiations proceeding now between ourselves and Dominion countries with a view to a concerted policy and mutual advantage?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: All these questions are being constantly discussed between the Dominions and this country.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that they are constantly discussed, but are any definite negotiations proceeding, so that we may have a concerted plan applicable to the Empire?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir; on such questions as are ready for negotiation.

Mr. Shinwell: What questions are dealt with?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is another question.

Mr. Granville: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer not mean that his Department has become a post office, and that it ought to be disbanded, and a Commonwealth Council set up in London?

Mr. Shinwell: Does my hon. Friend understand that we are getting concerned about the dilly-dally policy that is being adopted in relation to the integration of the Empire on economic policy; and will he make due representations to his superiors?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Export Credit Facilities

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that every effort will be made to state early in 1945 their decision as regards export credits; and issue a statement showing their proposals to finalise long-term trading arrangements with Russia and other countries which need them.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): As I have already stated, a Bill to extend export credit facilities will be introduced in the New Year, and this, no doubt, will afford an opportunity for the discussion of the other matters mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sooner the better? These matters cannot be allowed to drift. The matter is vitally urgent, and calls for action forthwith.

Mr. Dalton: Nothing is drifting. The Bill is ready to be introduced, as soon as the Business of the House allows.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that nothing ever drifts at the Board of Trade? It is drifting all the while.

Clothing Coupons

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can see his way to reducing the number of coupons for uniform required for uniform staff of the R.A. associations and other associations, such as the Corps of Commissionaires, in view of the requirements of men discharged from the Forces and the wearing out of old uniforms.

Mr. Dalton: I regret that, in view of the present shortage of supplies, I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. I have made special arrangements for Servicemen to get coupons in order to equip themselves with civilian clothing on their discharge from the Forces.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while he and I can wear out our old clothes, these men, in the nature of their calling, have to be smartly dressed?

Mr. Dalton: I am doing the best I can with the very limited supplies that are available. I will certainly bear the case in mind, although I cannot do more at the moment.

Mrs. Tate: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that manufacturers of school clothing are prevented from supplying girls' headwear, berets, unless an overcoat to match is supplied with each article; and whether he will rescind the Order responsible for this state of affairs.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) on 27th October last.

Mrs. Tate: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that manufacturers of school clothing are no longer able to make blazers without lined sleeves except in a material which is unsuitable and, at present, unobtainable; and whether he will rescind this Regulation, which makes obligatory the use of extra material which is not necessary.

Mr. Dalton: Special utility cloth, similar to that in general use before the war, is made in two qualities for school children's blazers, the sleeves of which need not be lined. There is no shortage of either of these two cloths.

British Celanese Company (Declaration of Dividend)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the announcement of the British Celanese dividend was not accompanied by a statement of profits, with the result that a false market in the shares was created to the detriment of the general public; and if he will ask the Cohen Committee to consider this subject with a view to the amendment of the law.

Mr. Stourton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the declaration of a dividend of 15 per cent. on the ordinary shares, the first in 25 years, by the board of the British Celanese Company 10 days


in advance of publication of particulars of profits earned with the explanation that the rate of dividend could only be paid on account of a rebate of excess profits tax, thereby causing wide fluctuations in the share quotations; and if, to prevent a repetition of the occurrence, he will implement the recommendations of the Stock Exchange Committee made in 1938 by enforcing the simultaneous publication of profit figures with a declaration of dividends by all public companies.

Mr. Dalton: My attention has been drawn to this matter. I regard it as most unfortunate and regrettable that this company failed to comply with the recommendations of the Stock Exchange Committee. Action of this kind, which misleads the public, or withholds information which the public have a right to expect, cannot be justified. It is not, however, an offence against the law as it now stands. But I have asked Mr. Justice Cohen's Committee to take account of this incident in framing their report.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he will request the appropriate authorities to investigate, and to ascertain whether this was a deliberate attempt to deceive and deprive the public of their money; and, if it was, will he give consideration to the question of a prosecution for conspiracy?

Mr. Dalton: I have expressed my view on the matter clearly, I hope, and I have also asked Mr. Justice Cohen's Committee to look into it. I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am doubtful whether we shall get much further by pursuing the line suggested.

Mr. Stourton: Is the Minister aware that this is a classic example of an opportunity for manipulation of share markets, to their own advantage, by a board of directors at the expense of the public?

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is really concerned about the public interest in this matter? Was not a very limited public affected—people who speculate on the Stock Exchange and who have been caught napping on this occasion—and why should he express undue sympathy with such people?

Mr. Dalton: Because, on the whole, straight dealing is better than crooked dealing.

Mr. Levy: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that no directors on the board of British Celanese during this period either bought or sold any shares whatever?

Mr. Dalton: Of course I have no knowledge of any transactions of the directors of this company.

Hearing Aids (Spare Parts)

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that owing to the shortage of spare parts there is a prolonged delay in repairing hearing aids; and if he will release a greater quantity of an improved quality for civilian use.

Mr. Dalton: I regret that there have been delays in repairs, due, in the first place, to the heavy and ever-increasing Service demands for valves, and, in the second place, to the fact that some manufacturers, contrary to the advice of the Board of Trade, have made new sets with valves needed for repairing old ones. As regards batteries, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 7th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie).

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: May I ask if the Minister is doing anything to improve a situation which he recognises is so bad?

Mr. Dalton: We are looking at it from every direction, but skilled labour is very short.

Industrial Design (Appointment of Council)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the importance of design in post-war planning for industry, he is taking steps to encourage good design in British industry.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have appointed a Council of Industrial Design to promote by all practicable means the improvement of design in the products of British industry. I have also appointed, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a Scottish Committee of the Council. I am glad to say that Sir Thomas Barlow


has consented to become Chairman of the Council and Sir Steven Bilsland, Chairman of the Scottish Committee. Industries will be invited to set up Design Centres to study and encourage the improvement of design of their own products. The Government propose to make financial grants to these Centres on the recommendation of the new Council. Provision will be made for the expenses of the Council and for the grants to the Design Centres in the Estimates to be introduced this Session. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members of the Council and of the Scottish Committee, and a copy of a letter which I have addressed to the Chairman defining the functions of the Council.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether practising designers will be represented on that Council—for instance, the Society of Industrial Artists?

Mr. Dalton: Nobody is represented in the strict sense, but I have, in fact, put several practising designers on the Council.

Following is the information:

Council of Industrial Design.

Sir Thomas D. Barlow, K.B.E. (Chairman).
Mrs. Margaret Allen.
Sir A. Steven Bilsland, Bart., M.C., D.L., J.P.
Sir Kenneth Clark, K.C.B.
Dr. R. S. Edwards, Ph.D.
Mr. Leslie Gamage.
Mr. Ernest W. Goodale, M.C.
Mr. William Haigh, J.P.
Mrs. Mary Harris.
Mr. Francis Meynell.
Mr. S. Gordon Russell, M.C.
Mr. Charles B. L. Tennyson, C.M.G.
Mr. A. G. Tomkins.
Mr. J. H. Tresfon.
Mr. Allan Walton.
The Hon. Josiah Wedgwood.
Mr. Philip G. R. Whalley.

Scottish Committee of the Council.

Sir A. Steven Bilsland, Bart., M.C., D.L., J.P. (Chairman).
Mr. Stanley Cursiter, O.S.E.
Mr. E. L. Denny.
Mr. J. Douglas Hood.
Mr. William Hunter.
Mr. John McMurtrie Kay.
Lady MacGregor of MacGregor.
Mr. R. A. Maclean.

Mr. Neil Macneill, J.P.
Mr. William Rennie, J.P.
Mr. R. Lyon Scott.
Mr. Allan Walton.

LETTER FROM MR. HUGH DALTON TO SIR THOMAS BARLOW.

Board of Trade,

Millbank, S.W.1.

19th December, 1944.

MY DEAR SIR THOMAS,

I am very glad that you have felt able to accept my invitation to become the first Chairman of the Council of Industrial Design. Now that the Council has been appointed and is ready to start work I think it will be useful to you if I set out, in some detail, the tasks which I propose that it should undertake.

The purpose of the Council is to promote by all practicable means the improvement of design in the products of British industry. Its main functions will be

(a) to encourage and assist the establishment and conduct of Design Centres by industries, and to advise the Board of Trade on the grant of financial assistance to these Centres;
(b) to provide a national display of well-designed goods by holding, or participating in, exhibitions and to conduct publicity for good design in other appropriate forms;
(c) to co-operate with the Education Authorities and other bodies in matters affecting the training of designers;
(d) to advise, at the request of Government Departments and other public bodies, on the design of articles to be purchased by them, and to approve the selection of articles to be shown in United Kingdom Pavilions in international exhibitions and in official displays in other exhibitions; and
(e) to be a centre of information and advice both for industry and for Government Departments on all matters of industrial art and design.

The functions of the Design Centres, whose activities the Council will co-ordinate, will be:

(a) to study the problem of design in relation to the products of the particular industry;
(b) to collect and make available to the industry information relating to changes in public taste and trade practice in home and overseas markets and to hold exhibitions both at home and overseas;
(c) to conduct and encourage research and experiment in the design of the products of the industry;
(d) to co-operate with the Education Authorities and other bodies for the training of designers and in the provision of special equipment, prizes and grants, and to arrange factory visits and training in factories for art students.

Grants to Design Centres will be made by the Board of Trade, after consulting the Council, on a similar basis to that adopted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for Research Associations.

The Council will make an Annual Report on its activities, which will be presented by the President of the Board of Trade to Parliament.

I am confident that under your leadership the Council will become firmly established and, by promoting in British industry a real appreciation of the importance of design, will play a vital part after the war in stimulating the sale, at home and overseas, of a wide range of goods of which we can all be justly proud.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) HUGH DALTON.

Sir Thomas D. Barlow, K.B.E.

11, Wimpole Street, W.1.

Retail Shopkeepers (Census)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what lines and with what object he is compiling a census of retail shopkeepers.

Mr. Dalton: No such census is yet being compiled, but I am discussing with a number of trade organisations the possibility of taking a census of distribution after the war.

Mr. Duckworth: In view of the acute anxiety felt by these people, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they will be able to continue in business; and will he endeavour to prepare the census at the earliest possible time? Is it possible now to state on what lines it is proposed to take the census?

Mr. Dalton: No one need feel any concern or anxiety about this matter, because, in any case, it will not be possible to take action until matters settle down after the war, but it would be valuable to have this information, as the United States has found.

British Engines (Spare Parts)

Sir George Schuster: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of his Department to ensure that, as increased productive capacity becomes available for manufacture for export, requirements of spare parts for British engines in neutral countries will be fully provided for, before facilities are given and export licences are granted for the export of spare parts required for engines of foreign manufacture not in service for the war effort.

Mr. Dalton: Export licences are now issued only for spare parts for British engines, but our aim should be to meet all demands for the export of spare parts, as soon as circumstances permit. Meanwhile,

I am discussing future licensing arrangements with the Export Group concerned.

Sir G. Schuster: May we take it from that answer that priority for spare parts for British engines will be maintained?

Mr. Dalton: I would rather not say more than I have said to-day, because we are discussing it with those concerned and I am anxious to get their views.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SITUATION (STATEMENT)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister when he is likely to make a statement on the war situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am not expecting to make a statement to Parliament on this subject before we separate for the Christmas holidays.

Mr. Tinker: Could the Prime Minister be a little more definite and say whether he would be ready to make a statement when we reassemble? I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a feeling that something should be said about it.

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, a great battle is proceeding now, and I should certainly think that, when we meet again after Christmas, it would be appropriate that we should review the scene, not only in one theatre, but widely.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Are we to understand from that reply, that we break up this week without any further statement on the situation in Greece?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to pirate the Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that, at present, newspapers are printing all their stories from German sources; and will he see that, as soon as the censorship black-out is removed, the British Press may have full information with regard to British prowess on that front?

The Prime Minister: This question of the temporary news black-out on the Western front is one for the Supreme Commander to settle. We, of course, support him.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICES WELFARE, INDIA

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the visit of the Under Secretary of State to the Home Office to India to make a Report on the welfare of the Services.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make on this subject to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (BADGE)

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that considerable numbers of young men, honourably discharged from the Services with disabilities alleged to be non-attributable cannot obtain any badge to protect them from insults, spoken or otherwise, from ignorant members of the public; and will he take steps to secure some protective token for them.

The Prime Minister: In present-day conditions of universal national service, no man's patriotism can be challenged because he wears civilian clothes. Moreover, the only persons discharged from the Forces who have not already some outward official mark of their service, for instance, the ribbon of the Africa or 1939–43 Stars, the King's Badge, or chevrons for war service, would be some of those discharged on account of non-attributable disability after service of less than twelve months. It is not proposed to institute a special badge for these.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE HEAD

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present policy of the Government regarding the powers of the head of the Civil Service, he will issue a further circular bringing up to date those of 1919 and 1920.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The 1919 and 1920 Circulars still hold good. Following a Debate in another place, a full Government statement on the position was made there on 25th November, 1942. There is no need for a new Circular to the Service, where the arrangements are well understood by those whose duty it is to work them.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not anomalous that the headship of the Civil Service should rest in the person of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and would it not be more appropriate that it should rest with a properly constituted Civil Service Commission?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made, which was to the effect that the Government adhere to the Circulars sent out in 1919 and in 1920.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in another place, a very sharp distinction was drawn between the head of the Foreign Office and the head of the Civil Service, and would he be good enough to place those two Circulars in the Library of the House?

The Prime Minister: There is, no doubt, a distinction to be drawn between the two offices which my hon. Friend has mentioned. They are obvious and well known distinctions. As to the two Circulars, I will certainly arrange for them to be placed in the tearoom or wherever it is desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (SITUATION)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make a further statement in regard to the situation in Greece.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not at present.

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend make such a statement, or does he hope to make such a statement, before we go away for Christmas?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: In view of the very deep anxiety of Members of this House, and the public, with regard to the developing situation in Greece, would it not be desirable before the House rises for three weeks to make some statement on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I think if I were to make a statement there would be requests that there should be a Debate—naturally—otherwise people would not like it, and say they were only hearing one side. Therefore, what we have to consider is not a statement, but a Debate. We did have a Debate, if my memory serves me right, and a Division only a


little while ago, and we could not really find time in the remaining three days for another Debate. Of course, for a Debate on a Vote of Censure, we could find Wednesday, and questions could be raised on that subject on the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess which could be arranged through the usual channels and with the Chair. The Government are the servants of the House, and we should not propose to have a Debate, otherwise than by one or other of those two methods.

Mr. Greenwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not a question of a Vote of Censure but, as it would appear to me, if I may say so with all respect, a quite legitimate demand for the elucidation of a developing and deteriorating situation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the situation is deteriorating. I think it has greatly improved, but one would rather wait until a more suitable occasion occurs than have another Debate so soon after the full one which has already been held in this House.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the Prime Minister aware that the country is very disturbed about the situation in Greece and that it would like, before we adjourn for Christmas, the very latest information as to developments there, and preferably the cheering news of a satisfactory settlement?

Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the Prime Minister, if he is unable to give us a Debate in Government time this week, whether there is any reason why we should not discuss this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill to-day, and, if we can, will the Foreign Secretary be here to answer for the Government?

The Prime Minister: I am advised that the Consolidated Fund Bill would not afford a convenient Parliamentary vehicle for a discussion on this subject. It would be extraordinarily limited and inconvenient. As to the very serious concern in the country, there is, of course, a sharp division of opinion in the country on the position not only in Greece but in other countries and that division naturally causes heart-searchings and sharp criticisms, but I do not think that this would be allayed by a Debate. Anyhow, I am

at the service of the House, and if the House likes to use the machinery provided, we are entirely ready to discuss the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether now, or before the end of the week, he could elucidate one point, as there appears to be some question emerging as to the establishment of a Regency in Greece? Would he be able to say whether the establishment of that Regency is being in any way frustrated or impeded by the attitude of King George?

The Prime Minister: I said just now, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), that I had no further statement to make at present on Greece, and that still holds.

Sir Richard Acland: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not being asked in the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise money for the purpose of war, and are we not therefore entitled to ask for what purpose the money is being spent, and challenge the spending of it?

Mr. Speaker: It happens that this is a very limited Consolidated Fund Bill. It relates only to Jamaica—a grant of £700,000—and to a grant of £9,750, mainly for Irish clubs in London.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not apparent from recent events that the Division which occurred in the House of Commons on this matter a few days ago, does not, in fact, represent the division of opinion in the country any more than the Division in the House of Commons which preceded the promotion of the Prime Minister to his present office represented the feelings of the country? Is it not therefore desirable that the House of Commons should try to influence events in Greece before we rise for the Christmas Recess, particularly in view of the fact that a very large body of opinion associated with His Majesty's Government is committed to the principle of an armistice?

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to discuss the Greek issue at the moment. As far as the opinion of the country is concerned, of course, anybody can always say what the opinion of the country is, but before others of a different opinion accept that view, some other processes have usually to be gone through in the country.


As far as the Division in the House the other day was concerned, it is true that it may not fully represent the opinion of the House, because only a two-line Whip was sent out summoning Members.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Prime Minister if it would not be wise to advise that all shooting should stop in Greece and that a debate should take place, not here but in Athens, to sort out these things?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that we cannot always stop shooting by saying we would like to stop it.

Mr. Granville: On the point of Order raised by the hon. Baronet, is there any reason why we should not discuss the question of whether the Prime Minister should or should not make a statement on Greece, on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: The ingenuity of hon. Members often enables them to discuss matters like that. It might be possible, I think.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS SURRENDER, BELGIUM (BRITISH MILITARY ACTION)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Prime Minister which units of the British Army were used to stop and disarm lorry loads of insurgents en route from Mons and elsewhere to Brussels at the end of November; and how many lorry loads were involved.

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is referring to the statement I made on 8th December. Precautionary measures were taken by
the British Army, but the disarming was, in the main, carried out by the Belgian authorities. In a few cases Belgian civilians willingly approached British troops to surrender their arms, and they were naturally helped to do so. The attitude of the British military authorities was regulated by the instructions received from the supreme Commander. These instructions were in full accord with the views of His Majesty's Government and we should be glad to share his responsibility.

Sir R. Acland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that responsible people on the spot have sent accounts of the whole of this incident which are widely different from the story of the organised putsch as

put to this House by the Prime Minister last week?

The Prime Minister: I was advised on the facts of the matter by the best authorities at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. Before I referred to it, I had what I put down carefully checked by those authorities, and I have no reason to believe that they did not represent the essential point, namely, that we did intervene, and had been ready to intervene, in putting down disorder on the lines of communications at the request of the Supreme Commander, and that we were acting under American instructions when we did that.

Sir R. Acland: But the Prime Minister said it was a putsch, and that is very important.

Mr. Shinwell: As my right hon. Friend made this a point of great substance in the course of his speech, namely, that lorry-loads of well-armed men were proceeding to Brussels for insurrectionary purposes—that was the allegation—will he take note of the fact that, from an authoritative Belgian source last week, it was stated categorically that all that happened was that two lorry-loads of men proceeded from Mons to Brussels, with the deliberate intention of handing over in an organised way their arms to the British military authorities, and that is all that happened?

The Prime Minister: Every one can believes what he likes about a thing like that. I do not know why they should have been travelling by this inconvenient route to take exceptional action to deliver over arms which their party, and parties associated with them, were objecting to giving up at all. It seems very odd but, as I say, I understood that there had been for several days—[Interruption]—I am answering a question put on behalf of the hon. Gentleman opposite and he might allow me to reply—that for three or four days beforehand there had been very considerable anxiety about what would happen in Brussels and, as will be seen, our general officer, General Erskine, who is under the orders of the Supreme Commander, gave several warnings and I believe there was also an advance by a large crowd on Parliament House, or wherever it was.

Sir R. Acland: A peaceful demonstration.

The Prime Minister: A peaceful demonstration—until you get well mixed up with the troops.

Sir R. Acland: Unarmed.

The Prime Minister: You do not know who is armed or not nowadays, when a small pistol can be produced from a pocket. At any rate there was firing, and very regrettable loss of life, and the Supreme Commander himself visited Brussels in those days and gave very decided and clear instructions as to the importance of preserving the tranquility of the communications. Therefore, far from withdrawing anything that I said in my speech, I may say that mature reflection, apart from some small details, leads me to reiterate what I said then.

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is a good idea that these insurgents should be following the example of the Common Wealth Members of Parliament and surrendering their arms?

Sir R. Acland: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister described this thing—on his information, of course—as an organised putsch, and that the responsible correspondents described it as nothing of the sort, what will the Prime Minister do to check up on his sources of information, which seem to be letting him down all over the world?

The Prime Minister: I always endeavour to check up, and I think the statement of an organised putsch was thoroughly justified.

Sir R. Acland: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: However, I do apologise for using a German word.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest to the House that two lorry-loads of persons, who turned back at once when requested to do so by the Belgian police, can fairly be represented to this House in a serious speech as an attempted military coup d' état by partisan forces in Belgium, requiring the use of the British Army? Will he desist from deceiving the House in this irresponsible manner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw,

because insults from him are as compliments from others. I repeat that the supreme American authorities and the British authorities on the spot were extremely anxious about the position in Brussels for the four or five days surrounding these events. I have not tried to deceive the House; why should I try to deceive the House? I certainly should not think the hon. Gentleman worth trying to deceive.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not wise and prudent and humane to prevent a putsch before it takes place?

Mr. Gallacher: If it is the case that there was an organised putsch, as the Prime Minister told us, why is it that not one of the leaders of this organised putsch is apprehended?

The Prime Minister: I suppose because they took great care to conceal their operations and identity.

Sir R. Acland: Is the Prime Minister still persisting in his allegation about it being an organised putsch?

Hon. Members: Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WARD:

51. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can now make a statement on the revision of motor vehicle taxation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As I think you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to reply to Question No. 51, and to ask leave to make a statement at the end of Questions. Perhaps I may, with your permission, make that statement now, Sir.
My Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and I have carefully considered all the views placed before the Government on the subject of post-war motor vehicle taxation. We have also taken into consultation the President of the Board of Trade in view of his special concern in this matter. We are very grateful for the assistance we have been afforded by the very full and informative memoranda which we have received from the bodies specially interested from their various angles in this subject.
As it is important that the industry should be aware of the Government's intentions as early as possible in order that they may take them into account in framing their plans, I think this is an occasion when I should make known the conclusions we have reached in advance of the Budget and associated Finance Bill in which the necessary provisions will be incorporated.
We have reached the conclusion that there is no sufficient case—anyhow at the present time—for making any shift of duty between the vehicle and its fuel or for introducing any new form of taxation on the vehicle such as a tax on value. But we have concluded that there would be appreciable advantage in altering the basis of calculation of licence duty on cars taxed on horse power by proceeding with reference to the cubic capacity of the engine instead of the area of cross-section of the cylinders. While the amount of duty charged must, obviously, be a matter for consideration from time to time in the light of circumstances, the immediate change would be arranged to produce approximately the same amount of revenue as would be received on the present basis. The rate to secure this result would be the equivalent of £1 per 100 cubic centimetres of engine capacity (subject to a minimum).
I contemplate that these changes would come into force—subject to statutory authority being obtained—on 1st January, 1946, but it is a matter for further consideration in discussion with those concerned whether the new rates should apply universally after that date or alternatively only to vehicles which are first registered after that date. In the case of omnibuses and coaches and goods vehicles, we propose to introduce scales which progress by one seat and ¼-ton steps respectively.

Miss Ward: Could my right hon. Friend say whether those decisions are acceptable to motor-car manufacturers; and whether this will enable them to compete in the export markets of the world?

Sir J. Anderson: The main decision I have announced is, I think, the one major point on which a practically unanimous view was expressed in the memoranda which were submitted to me. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that there remains one point in regard to the spacing of the steps in the graduation of the tax. While

I take the view that it might be disadvantageous to space those steps as widely as has been suggested in some quarters, I think there would be an advantage in making the scale rather more flexible than would be the case if the steps corresponded to each 100 cubic centimetres. That is a point to which I am ready to give further consideration.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the motor trade generally will be satisfied with the change coming into operation a year hence? Does that meet the possibility for development of the trade?

Sir J. Anderson: I gather so, yes.

Mr. Bowles: Can the Chancellor say whether it means a saving to the public who run cars, or not?

Sir J. Anderson: I thought I had made it clear that the arrangement will be so designed, in the first instance, at any rate, as not to involve any loss of revenue, and, therefore, I think there will be no saving to the public.

Mr. Benson: As the right hon. Gentleman has done practically nothing whatever towards helping us in the export market, will he see to it that he decides rapidly whether he will give larger steps in taxation?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a point on which there is not, at present, unanimity among important sections of manufacturers.

Mr. Benson: Naturally, the manufacturers are all in favour of the present method of taxation. It gives them magnificent protection.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Joint Committee in Session 1943–44 referred to the Select Committee to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords (Sir Cyril Entwistle).

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Second Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Cinematograph Films (Quota Amendment) Order, 1944, presented on 19th


December, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to it, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference of the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it would be an exaggeration if I were to describe this Bill as an important reconstruction Measure. Indeed, it is more than that. In one major respect at least it represents the culminating point in the series of electoral reforms which began with the great Reform Act of 1832. It extends the principle of universal adult suffrage for men and women alike to our local government elections, adding about 7,000,000 electors to the local government roll. It provides for the resumption of local elections. It improves the registration machinery. It further democratises the Parliamentary franchise. On each of these points it is important in relation to reconstruction. First, it introduces further improvements in the electoral machinery already provided for the forthcoming General Election. To the uninformed these changes might appear to be mere technicalities, but this is far from the case. It is, I suggest, incumbent on both the Government and Parliament to take every practicable step to make the General Election as representative as ever we can.
In a Parliamentary democracy a basic requirement is that Parliament should be vigorous, healthy and representative of popular opinion. It is from the electors themselves that the House of Commons derives its authority and vitality. The responsibility on the electors themselves is as heavy as at any time in our history. The electors must, therefore, be provided with the fullest facilities for securing a Parliament of the widest and most representative character, as reflecting the popular will and the general opinion of the nation. Parliament itself cannot be expected to be at its best unless it is elected and kept under intelligent observation by an informed, upright, lively electorate. The people, no less than Members of Parliament, perhaps even more than Members of Parliament, are essential to the


success of our British democracy. The electors, too, must serve and give at an election, and not be content with demanding and taking advantages for themselves. There are dangers in cynicism and apathy. Perhaps this is particularly so at the end of a great war which has been so devastating in its impact on the life of the ordinary citizens as the present war has been, and the tendency to apathy has inevitably been accentuated by the long period which has passed since the last Parliamentary General Election and the last local government elections. Reforms of electoral machinery cannot do more than remove obstacles to the full and free expression of the will of the people, but that is not unimportant. It is, indeed, essential. However, in the last resort what matters is the intelligent interest of an informed electorate, and the quality of the political parties and the candidates put forward at Parliamentary and local government elections.
The second main purpose of the Bill is the provision for the resumption of our local government elections. Undoubtedly from the point of view of reconstruction the local authorities will be hardly less important that Parliament itself. The success of reconstruction policy in many fields will depend very largely upon the various classes of local authorities and upon the quality of local government administration. I have said, when I was more particularly identified with local government, and I still say it standing here as a Minister of the Crown, that local government, as a whole, is not a bit less important than Parliamentary government in relation to the domestic well-being of our people. The suspension of the local government elections has gone even further than in the case of the Parliamentary elections, because in the case of the local government elections casual vacancies have been legally filled by co-option on the part of the authorities themselves. Like the House of Commons, the local authorities, therefore, need to be refreshed and reinvigorated by new mandates from the electorate, and the Government have decided that though the war is not yet over it is an essential preliminary step in reconstruction to fix now the dates when the local elections shall be resumed.
A third aspect of the Bill is that it makes some permanent reforms in our

electoral system on lines recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference. It does not, however, set out to be comprehensive in this respect. Time did not permit of us dealing in this Bill with all the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The more urgent matters, and particularly the resumption of the local elections and the provisions relating to the electoral register, could not be held up while complicated legislation to give effect to the miscellaneous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference was being prepared, and, as I have announced, the Government, in accordance with the suggestion of the Conference itself, has referred some of the points raised for further examination by a Departmental Committee which is being presided over by Sir Cecil Carr, Mr. Speaker's Counsel.
More concretely, the three objects of the Bill, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, are these: (1), to provide for the assimilation of the Parliamentary and local government franchises; (2), to enable local government elections to be resumed; (3) to provide for the publication of registers of electors at certain fixed dates. It is true that the Bill ranges over a wider field than this, but most of the other provisions are consequential on these three main purposes.
I confess that this has been an exceedingly difficult Bill to draft. If hon. Members have had a good deal of trouble in understanding some of its Clauses I sympathise with them, and I would say by way of comfort that to superintend the drafting of the Bill has given me more headaches than hon. Members will get from the reading of it. I have had a good deal of experience of drafting Parliamentary Bills, and this is one of the toughest I have ever handled. Indeed, I think the drafting of a Bill for the complete socialisation of a great industry would be a much more simple affair; but that does not come within the purview of the Home Office at the moment. It has been a difficult Bill to draft and it is a difficult Bill to follow in its details, but we have done the best we can. It will not be too easy to expound without giving too much detail but with the good will of the House I will do my best to explain its provisions.
The first feature to which I draw attention is the proposal to assimilate the Parliamentary and the local government fran-


chises. This follows a unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and, subject to one modification, effect is being given to that recommendation. There is, at present, a distinction between the Parliamentary and the local government franchise, with the result that there is a theoretical property qualification in respect of the local government franchise, though it is of a very small order, and there is a good deal of evasion. I think it was common sense that the Speaker's Conference should declare that, having regard to the experience of Parliamentary universal suffrage, we could now move forward to complete, universal, man and woman suffrage in local government elections as well. The distinction between the two franchises had become a little unreal and increasingly difficult to defend, and the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and provision is made accordingly in the Bill.
But we came to a point which, perhaps because it was not thought of, was apparently passed over in the Speaker's Conference. In Scotland there are two bodies of ratepayers, payers of owners' rates and payers of occupiers' rates, who both have the local government vote. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be available to the House for these Scottish matters, having a good Scottish conscience, felt that he could not take the money of these people as ratepayers and then say that they could not vote in the elections for the local authorities, and frankly I do not think there is any answer to that point. The same point arises in England and Wales, but not quite so vigorously as in Scotland, because here only the occupier of property in more than one place has a right to vote, and, this being a Bill which bases the local government franchise on the Parliamentary franchise, which broadly speaking ensures that if a person has the Parliamentary vote he has the local government vote, we have added a provision whereby the ratepayer qua ratepayer shall have the local government vote on a separate and additional qualification. We think that that is fair and just and, coupled with the assimilation of the franchise, is not a bad arrangement for Parliament to approve. In answer to the interjection by an hon. Member opposite, the spouse in these

cases will not vote. The voter will be the person who is the ratepayer.
I come now to the resumption of the local government elections. We feel that the earliest practicable date should be chosen in each case. Many towns have been damaged pretty badly. That is particularly true of London but it is also true of many places in the provinces. It is not going to be easy to get the local government elections going again and the councillors representing some wards will not have many electors to represent. We propose that the elections for county boroughs and non-county borough councils shall take place in November, 1945.

Mr. Tinker: Is that definite? Can it not be altered by Parliament if desired?

Mr. Morrison: It would be competent for the House to consider the point in Committee and it may well be raised. There is a great deal of opinion which would favour Spring elections but there is also a good deal of opinion against it. I have had considerable experience of London municipal elections. I know that November sounds a bad month, but it is only the polling day that falls in November: all the rest is in October, and I myself would not be disposed to alter the date. If you have the elections in the Spring there are many attractions other than electioneering, and that is a point which has to be considered. However we can discuss it in Committee and see what the general opinion is. It is proposed that county, district and parish council elections shall be held in the Spring of 1946. We could not have started them in the Spring of 1945. The legal date for county council elections will be 8th March, though that may not be the actual date, and for district and parish council elections 15th April. A point arises as to casual vacancies occurring before these dates, and it is proposed to meet it in this way. If a casual vacancy occurs more than six months before the date for the election proper, it will be filled by co-option for that limited period. If it occurs within six months of the election the existing law will apply. That is to say, the vacancy will only be filled if the number of unfilled vacancies exceeds one-third of the Councillors. In this case the difference in


order to make up the two-thirds will be filled by co-option.
The next point which may be controversial in a mild way—I do not think there is anything wildly controversial about the Bill; I hope not—is how the councillors should retire. In the case of County Councils in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, of Metropolitan Borough Councils and of certain district Councils, no difficulty arises because it has been the practice that all the councillors retire triennially. A difficult problem, however, arises in the case of provincial borough councils and most district councils where the system has been that a third retire each year. If the annual thirds principle were rigidly applied, broadly speaking all the councillors would have been in office nine years by the time the election comes instead of three, and there is a case for arguing that there should be a general election for all of them over the whole field. On the other hand my impression of provincial municipal affairs, which is fortified by the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association—as I understand them—is that the principle of the third retiring is one to which the municipalities have become accustomed and to which they attach importance. It avoids sweeping changes, it serves to warn the majority if it is going wrong in the opinion of the electorate, and—to give a defence of a lower order for the system—it is a good thing to keep the party machine oiled once a year. But the principal argument is continuity in order to prevent violent and sudden changes. London has followed a different system and far be it from me to say that the great bulk of London authorities have not done well under their present system. We considered this and we looked at the other side of the problem which is the co-opted element. The Government felt, and I think the House will feel, that co-option was a necessity, but that it was not desirable, and it ought to go as soon as possible. Therefore, whilst making no reflection on the character and the integrity of co-optees, we think that they should be sent to the hustings as soon as possible, and the principle of the Bill is that all the co-optees shall retire at the first election. I do not know exactly what proportion of the councillors will be sent to the poll,

but I have taken a spot check over a considerable area and I should say that it ranges between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent., so that it is probable that round about half of the Councillors will retire at the first election. I think this is a fair compromise. It upholds the principle of the third retiring and it does not infringe the principle that co-option should not continue for a moment longer than necessary.

Mr. Hynd: I understand my right hon. Friend is referring to those elected in 1936. Does it also apply to those elected in that year for only one or two years who were again elected in 1937 or 1938? Will they also have to retire?

Mr. Morrison: That will solve itself. The third who must retire are the third who have been in the longest, that is those elected in 1936. Those elected in 1937 will retire in the next year.

Mr. Hynd: I am speaking of those elected in 1936 who again went to the polls in 1937.

Mr. Morrison: They will step into the shoes of the persons whose place they took. But this will not apply to the co-optee. He will be required to retire anyway. In the case of the borough elections the principle of the third retiring will be operated in the ordinary way. As to aldermen, things will proceed as before, a half retiring I think in 1945, and a further half three years thereafter. As regards councillors there were three possible courses, only a third retiring including co-optees, one-third plus the co-optees, or the whole Council. We have chosen the second course, a third retiring plus all the co-optees. There are certain Scottish Clauses, and if any points arise on them they will be dealt with by the representative of the Scottish Office Clauses 9 and 10 provide for resumption in Scotland as follows—Town Councils on the 6th November, 1945, County and District Councils on the 4th December, 1945. In the case of the Town Councils retirements will be dealt with on the same principle as in England and Wales. In the case of county and district councils the practice has been and will continue to be that the whole council will retire.
The Bill provides for the special position of aldermen and councillors who were elected before the war or may have been


co-opted since, who have been ordered away from their local authority areas by the Minister of Labour or have been called up for military service or have otherwise gone away on national service.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does that apply to civil servants who went to Blackpool?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, if they were councillors. We treat them all equally. These persons will probably have lost their qualification to stand for election next time, and we take the view that in the case of existing aldermen and councillors it will be right to preserve their qualification for the next election only. There is also a special provision for the ancient city of London, which has had more than its fair share of air raid damage. There is a persistent democracy about the set-up of London's civic affairs. I am not talking about democracy in any other sense than formal democracy. The City is almost as democratic as the Miners' Federation with its annual election of officers. The whole of the Common Council retires every twelve months—on St. Thomas's Day. No other local authority in the country has this arrangement.
As regards the Chartist principle of annual elections, the City of London had got going before the Chartist Movement was born. This meticulous formal democracy runs right through the organisation of the ancient Corporation. The number of common councillors is extraordinarily large for the area—I think 250. The wards are therefore very small, and I suspect that at present quite a number of them do not exist at all. We propose that the election of common councillors shall be postponed for a further year and shall take place on St. Thomas's Day, 1946, when we hope that some of the electors will have returned.
I come now to the register. The Bill provides for the publication of an annual register in respect of local government elections on October 15th. The qualifying date for that October 15th register will be June 30th. The Speaker's Conference recommended that parliamentary and local government elections should be held on the same register, but clearly that Conference did not contemplate a fresh ad hoc register for any casual election that might arise. We must, therefore, have a

standing local government register of some sort, and in due course a standing Parliamentary register for by-elections it we can get it. Therefore, a register for local govenment elections must have a fixed period of validity and the annual register will serve for all local government elections. The publication will be on 15th October and the elections will run on in November, March and April, and the register will operate until the next annual register is published. Having regard to the recommendations of the Conference and to the desirability of using the annual register for Parliamentary elections so far as practicable, the Bill also provides for this register to be used for all Parliamentary elections initiated between 9th September, that is to say, 36 days before 15th October, which has a relationship to a provision in the Act of 1943, and 31st December of any year.
Parliamentary elections initiated between 1st January and 9th September still have to be on the register compiled under the 1943 Act. Later on it may be that we can get a regular system running through the year, but I am afraid that that is the best we can do at the present. However, there will be a special register next year. The register which we hope to publish on 7th May will be published in view of a possible Parliamentary General Election, but the date must not be taken as any official pronouncement on the part of His Majesty's Government as to when the Parliamentary General Election will take place. Hitler, of course, will have something to do with that if he is still alive. It is impracticable under present printing conditions to publish a register for the whole country within the timetable allowed by the 1943 Act if it were required for a general election before 15th October. Therefore, we are publishing this special register, and the qualifying date for the 7th May register will be 31st January. This will serve for all Parliamentary elections initiated after 31st March.

Mr. De Chair: May we assume that no General Election is, therefore, possible before that date?

Mr. Morrison: No, that would be wrong. An election is possible, but it would have to be held under the machinery of the 1943 Act. It would, of course, be quite wrong if the official machinery for an election were such that we could not have an election. We always


ought to be able to have one if it is required.
We have made provision for a later qualifying date instead of 31st January in respect of the Service register. Clause 13 (5) provides that the Electoral Registration Regulations may fix a date not later than 31st March. This can be done in the case of Servicemen and women because there are no claims or objections to be provided for. I am sure the House will think it is right that that should be done because we want to give every facility for the Services to vote. The registration provisions contained in Part III of the Bill are lengthy and complex and I will not go into detail about them, but the above is their effect and points will no doubt arise in Committee.

Commander King-Hall: Will the Service voter be on the 7th May register, in the ordinary way, or will there be a separate register for Service voters?

Mr. Morrison: I think that there is a separate section of the register, but the important thing is to get them on the register.

Sir Percy Harris: The Service list has always been separate.

Mr. Morrison: Thatis so, and it will remain separate.

Commander King-Hall: The point about which I really wanted to ask was whether there will be any security objections to allowing a man's unit to be on the register.

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure; perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will raise that point in Committee. It is provided in Clause 14 (2) (a) that there shall be a register of civilian residents, a register of business premises voters, and a register of Service voters.

Captain Duncan: With regard to the 15th October register, I understand that the L.C.C. elections will be in March, 1946, based on civilian qualifications on 30th June, 1945—nine months later. What facilities will be given to Servicemen?

Mr. Morrison: I am dealing now with the Parliamentary register, not the local government register. Whether it will be possible to do anything for overseas Service voters in local government elec-

tions I am doubtful, but we can discuss that later. At the moment I am dealing with the Parliamentary register. The Government are only too anxious, as all of us of all parties are, to do what we can to give maximum opportunities to the Services to vote. In order to make the Service register as comprehensive as possible certain extra categories have been added. One consists of members of the Forces holding emergency commissions in the Indian or Burmese Forces, who but for such service would be living in this country, and officers of the Indian Army Reserve of officers and its Burmese equivalent resident in this country. White N.C.O.s and men of the Indian and Burmese Forces are already entitled to be registered as they remain members of the British Army, and we propose to cover these people in the Bill. Similar treatment for officers and men in the Colonial Forces who qualify by residence in this country is also provided for, and members of the Forces discharged abroad who took up civilian war work without returning to the United Kingdom are covered.
A specially difficult class of people whom we wanted to cover are prisoners of war. It is clear that we cannot make any arrangements about them while they are prisoners. Indeed, Nazi Germany is not exactly expert in the conduct of elections as we conduct them. We did feel, however, that as soon as possible after the release of prisoners of war we should make every endeavour to get them on the register. Everybody would wish that we should do everything we can in that respect. We have gone into this matter thoroughly, and in the confidence that the House would wish this to be done we have made certain provisions in the Bill. Clause 17 meets the point by providing that persons who have been prisoners of war and who have not previously made a Service declaration, may be registered after the qualifying date, even up to the date of the initiation of an election. I am sure that, although this will cause practical inconvenience to the hard pressed Electoral Registration Officers, they will take the view that it is in a good cause and do everything they can to help.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the effect of Clause 16? Is it to remove the business vote?

Mr. Morrison: The Solicitor-General will deal with that later. It will be remembered that, broadly speaking, the Speaker's Conference recommended that, while the business voter in his or her own right should be preserved, the spouse should be disfranchised, and the Government propose to carry that proposal through.
With regard to the redistribution which follows on the next General Election, after the present limited redistribution, it was provided in the 1943 Act that the periodical publication of lists of electors should take place before the setting up of the boundary commissions for the first general redistribution. As this Bill provides for the publication of registers, it is no longer necessary to follow the provisions of the 1943 Act. Consequently, under Clause 22 (2) it is provided that the general redistribution should begin to be set in motion on 15th October, 1946. What we are trying to get is the earliest date consistent with the general settling down of the population, but we really do not know when that will be. The other complication is that this general redistribution must take place between the next General Election and the one after, and we do not know how long the next Parliament will last. It may indeed be affected by the results of the first General Election. What we have provided is that the general redistribution should begin on 15th October, 1946, but that the Secretary of State may propose to Parliament that it can be on the same date in 1945 or in 1947, so that there is a spread of two years. The Secretary of State can only get that done if he gets affirmative Resolutions passed by both Houses. Therefore, the House is master of the situation all the time. This will give us some degree of elasticity which should cover all emergencies.
There is one omission from the Bill to which I should refer. I mentioned on Thursday last that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was presiding over a conference to consider the practicability of extending postal voting to members of the Forces and seamen overseas and war workers abroad over as wide a geographical area as possible, on the assumption that the system would not operate until the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, and that, if a suitable scheme was devised, it was hoped to give

effect to it in this Bill. In the event of a practicable scheme being worked out in time, we will do our utmost to table the necessary Amendments to the Bill before the Committee stage, which it is hoped to take as soon as possible after the House resumes following the Christmas Recess. I trust that this procedure, which is unusual on a matter of such importance, will be found acceptable so that we can, if we are lucky, get that part of the legislation passed as soon as possible. If the provisions relating to the publication of the register on 7th May are to be carried out, it is essential that the Bill should become law early in February, and if it can be done before, so much the better. I am sure the Government can rely upon the co-operation of the House in this connection. From this point of view, it would be helpful if hon. Members who may wish to put down Amendments will take advantage of the war-time rule by doing so in good time during the recess, thereby giving us notice so that we can examine their proposals before the resumption. As soon as possible after this Bill has become law the Government will also ask Parliament to pass the Electoral Registration Regulations prescribing the necessary timetable for the publication of the 7th May register. This will be subject to an affirmative Resolution.
In conclusion, let me say that this Bill owes much to the Conference over which you, Sir, so ably and expeditiously presided. We are grateful to you and to your colleagues. It is essentially a matter upon which members from their own experience of Parliamentary, and, in many cases, local elections, can help in the Committee stage by constructive advice and suggestions. It embodies considerable improvements in the arrangements which Parliament has already made with a view to the General Election. It will, I hope, be possible to add to it a scheme for postal voting for as many as practicable of the Forces overseas, which I know the House would wish to see adopted, and which will enable Service men and women to make their maximum intelligent contribution to the General Election. The provisions for the resumption of local government elections and the merging of the franchise are, of course, of great importance. I am sorry to have been as long as I have, but this is a rather difficult Bill and I thought it my duty to explain it in


detail to the House. I am grateful to hon. Members for the patience and courtesy with which they have listened.

1.0 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: We are all, I think, grateful to the Home Secretary for the exposition he has given of the Bill, which deals in part with transitory matters and in part makes permanent changes of the law which resulted from that conference over which you, Mr. Speaker, presided and on which I had the privilege of serving. We were unanimous in our view that there was no longer a case for having two registers, and I think we were all in favour of the assimilation of the local government with the national, Parliamentary franchise. In considering the matter people took into account, of course, whether it would pay them or otherwise, but it does not seem to make much difference. My majority in Croydon was about 17 times as great on the Parliamentary franchise as that of all the councillors added together on the same side as myself. That was very interesting, although I do not know why we do so very much better on the Parliamentary register than we do on the local government register. The municipal candidate has a much smaller task, a ward being much easier to cover than is a Parliamentary constituency. That result has had its advantages from my point of view, because I was always able to point out to the local councillors, if ever they took a different view of matters from myself, that I was a much more representative person than they were, my majority being so much bigger. Anyhow, that is a local matter. I do not know whether the same is not also true of the constituency represented hi Parliament by the Home Secretary.
I think also there was a general view that municipal and Parliamentary electors now have the same general outlook, that it would not make any difference to the prospects of parties, and that, from the point of view of the general convenience, it would be very much better to assimilate the two registers. It was also thought to be better on grounds of principle, as the taxpayer now pays about one half of the local expenditure and the Parliamentary elector who is a ratepayer is a very large contributor to the municipal fund. He is, therefore, entitled to have

his say. On grounds of principle and convenience the case for assimilation is very strong. With regard to the spouse, I felt that she was in a somewhat indefensible position.

Mr. H. Morrison: "He" as well as "she."

Sir H. Williams: It is mainly "she" but there are a few "he's" among them. When the women's franchise was introduced, the woman got the vote very largely as the wife of her husband, as the husband was the occupier. When the business vote was introduced, the same principle was followed. The case was very strong as applied to ordinary residence but in the case where the spouse never lives in the town and has never visited the town in which the business premises are, it is indefensible that a large number of women with no direct interest in a place should suddenly appear and vote. I do not believe that the loss of votes will be very much, because a large number of these spouses did not vote. On grounds of principle and inconvenience it is right to make an end of this qualification.
On the question of one-third of the councillors retiring each year, I would like to point out that although I live in London I represent a Croydon constituency and that Croydon has the one-third principle in operation. Personally, I think London would be much better off if they also had the one-third principle operating. I have never liked the idea of the whole of the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils being voted for once every three years. The one-third principle has many advantages, among which is the advantage that it keeps a council in much more constant touch with the electors. It also makes the electors much more interested in the councillors.
The real trouble is the lack of public interest in local government, and that is one of the most deplorable things at the present time. I do not know whose fault it is, but I am amazed at the number of communications I get from constituents who are raising purely local government matters, about which they ought to write to their local councillors. I have already made a suggestion that local councils should stick up at the corner of every street the name of the councillor for that particular ward, so that the electors would


know where to send their inquiries. It might be of some advantage in Surrey. Croydon newspapers circulate quite a lot round about the town, and it is a bit inconvenient, if one happens to be a bit noisy in this House, to find that people who think you must be their Member of Parliament write to you. Silence appears to be the only course to be pursued by a Surrey Member of Parliament who wants to avoid correspondence.
There are many parts of the Bill which are purely transitory, and which, when the law comes to be consolidated, will not appear. I hope very much that we shall have a consolidating Bill before long relating to representation of the people. It is dreadful that, in order to find out or look up something, one should have to study a dozen Acts of Parliament simultaneously. The case for consolidation is overwhelming. I always make that plea whenever I see a Bill which I cannot understand because of its innumerable references to other Acts. I am not surprised that the Home Secretary had a headache in the drafting of the Bill. We shall all have headaches in trying to read it properly. I am also not surprised that, when the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked the Home Secretary a question about Clause 16 the Minister gave him the wrong answer. He answered the hon. Member about Clause 2, which relates to the abolition of the spouse's qualification. Clause 16 starts off by saying:
Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1943 no business premises register shall be specially prepared for any parliamentary election initiated after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
The hon. Member was a little afraid that that meant that the business register was to be wiped out entirely. Of course, it does not mean that, but I quite see how an able lawyer can be deceived. It makes a layman like myself run much greater risks of deception.
I would like to draw attention to Clause 12 (1, b, iv) which seems to represent a major change in the law but to which the Home Secretary did not refer. This paragraph says:
for any election initiated during the period beginning with the first day of January and ending with the ninth day of September in the year nineteen hundred and forty-six or any subsequent year"—

so that means for ever—
a register consisting of a civilian residence register and a service register specially prepared for the election under the Act of 1943, and of the business premises register comprised in the annual register which came into force in the preceding year.
It looks as though, if we had a General Election at any time between 1st January and 9th September in any year, we would have an ad hoc register for the purpose. That is a major change in the law. In other words, we are not preparing an annual register. It is going to create a delay of eight weeks between the day when it is announced that Parliament is to be dissolved and when the next election takes place. It may be a goad thing to have a much fresher register than we have had in the past, if an election takes place in a period which is quite remote from the qualifying date for an annual register, but let us realise what we are doing and that it makes a big change.
I have always felt and I have said so—my point was met to a small extent by the Act of 1943—that I did not like this country to be without a Parliament for a long time. There will be a delay of about nine weeks after a dissolution, when the country is effectively without a Parliament. I do not like that to happen, even though some of the hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite are in charge of the country while we are absent. I can imagine people even worse than them—although that is sometimes difficult to imagine. I have always thought that we could abolish the Dissolution of Parliament by having a Proclamation calling a new Parliament and letting the old Parliament sit until the new Parliament is elected. I think that is a gap in our constitutional machinery and I have pressed for remedy for it in a number of speeches in this House and elsewhere. The Dissolution is not complete, even to-day. After the Royal Proclamation dissolving Parliament, if there should be a demise of the Crown before polling day, the Election is put off for six months and the old Parliament comes back. When we dissolve Parliament we still retain Mr. Speaker, because he has certain duties to perform in connection with Private Bill legislation. Although he ceases to be a Member of Parliament he still is retained as Speaker of a Parliament that no longer exists. I do not know whether you realise,


Sir, the curious position you will occupy when this Parliament is dissolved.
Suppose there had been a Dissolution of Parliament on 25th August, 1939. We should not have had the Emergency Powers Act and we could have voted no money to carry on the war. We should have had to strain the Royal Prerogative and then to pass an Act of Indemnity. It ought to be impossible for the nation to be entirely without a Parliament for any considerable period. It is true that there might be long periods when it would not matter very much whether there was a Parliament in Session or not, but we ought to have the power to have a Parliament in Session. I do not like this eight or nine weeks' period without a Parliament. It is true that under the Act of 1943 there are certain temporary modifications; the Royal Proclamation announcing the Dissolution of Parliament does not become effective until 28 days after it is made, but the words to which I have called attention,
any subsequent year,
are a step in the wrong direction, unless we have this other change in the constitutional machinery.
I am sorry to have drifted a little bit away from the main purpose of the Bill, but what I have said all relates to the representation of the people. The Home Secretary and his officers have done a good job in the drafting of the Bill. It is very probable that we shall discover certain matters for amendment. I do not know whether other hon. Members would think of following the course I am proposing to follow. I am asking the leaders of the different parties on the Croydon Borough Council to meet with me and the town clerk in order to study the Bill and find out the best machinery to give us the most effective representation of the people in local Government matters. It may be helpful if we approach these matters as little from the party view as possible. We want to get a good machine in order that our democracy may work well.
I am certain there will be no Division on the Bill. We may want to argue with the Home Secretary on the Committee stage, but I shall do my best to respond to his appeal that Amendments should be put down during the Recess so that his officials may have time to study them. I well

know the fate of Amendments handed in at the last moment. Such an Amendment is almost invariably refused, because the officials have not had time to understand its meaning and, still more, have not had time to alter the drafting of it. Private Members may be able to draft Amendments much more intelligibly than expert draftsmen, but the expert draftsman always likes to put an Amendment into language which no one else can understand but himself.

1.13 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I do not want to go into the many complex matters raised in this Bill. Most of them were agreed to by Mr. Speaker's Conference and I think are approved by most Members of the House. There are, however, points I want to raise. I would like to ask the Government why the Act of 1943 has been superseded by Part III of this Bill. It seems to me that the effect will be to make it possible to have a General Election within a limit of 17 days from the Proclamation of the Dissolution. If I am right that would make it possible to have a snap election. I wish to express my deep disappointment that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to abolish plural voting, which is an anachronism, a relic of the past, and a survival of the days when the franchise was tied to property qualifications. Now that those qualifications have gone, I cannot understand how, in equity, we can allow this privilege, for it is not a right but a privilege, to persist. We shall be told, no doubt, that half a loaf is better than no bread and that we have one concession in the Bill, in that the right of the spouse to vote is abolished. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said that in point of fact he did not think that great numbers of spouses did use their vote at any time. Therefore, in that sense, it is not a very important concession that is made in the Bill. It is possible to evade this provision, for instance, making one's wife a partner in the business. She would still be entitled in that event to have her vote, not as a spouse but as a partner in the business. Therefore, I think this concession really does not amount to much. But why should one class of citizen be allowed this special privilege? Why should one citizen be allowed to have two


bites at the cherry? What is the defence? Why should they be singled out?
I have heard the argument that it is very important that the business community should be represented in this House, and should be able to speak with authority. Of course it is important—no one denies it—but when I look at the benches opposite, when they are perhaps a little more fully occupied than they are now, I do not think we need fear that the business community in this country is under represented, or is likely to be so. But hon. Gentlemen opposite speak only with authority for one side of the industry. If it is important that trade and industry should be represented with authority in this House I suggest that the privilege should be extended to the workers as well. Why not let us have a double vote for the miners, or for any other section of the workers? We should have at any rate some measure of equity if we did that. If the Home Secretary brought forward an Amendment of that kind to extend this privilege to other classes of the community, it would be quite a different matter. It is said, of course, that the business premises vote does not cover a large number of constituencies, and that in the main it is confined to perhaps only eight or ten. It is said that it is a very good thing that industry should he represented directly in this House, and that it is very much better than that industry should be represented perhaps not so openly, by methods of which this House could not approve. I think that is a blackmailing argument, and if in fact practices of that kind were to be allowed it would be a very serious matter indeed, with which the House would have to deal ruthlessly.

Sir H. Williams: I take it the hon. Lady would apply the same principle to trade unionists coming here to represent their members?

Miss Lloyd George: I suppose the hon. Member is alluding to my reference to the miners. Their representatives have a great many seats in this House, and represent a large proportion of the party above the Gangway. But the miners have only one vote. My objection here is to plural voting. If the miners were to have one vote in the mining area in which they work, and another where they live, I should object to it and say it was wrong. But so long as there are great

aggregations of workers in certain areas of this country they will be represented in this House. But they have only one vote. That is the point I am making.
I have no objection at all to the registration of business premises, any more than I would object to university voters being able to vote as such if they wished to do so. Let them choose between their residence and their business, between their shop and their home. But they should not have this privilege, which is not enjoyed by the majority of citizens, of having two votes. The proposal was put before the Speaker's Conference, that the business vote should be abolished, but it was unfortunately defeated by a very large majority. There were only five who supported that proposal. I hope to put down an Amendment on this matter when the point is reached during the Committee stage, and I trust the proposal will then meet with a much more favourable and deserving fate from this House.

1.20 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I listened with great care, attention and interest to the statement of my right hon. Friend, and so strong were his arguments that I was almost in danger of fearing I had no chance even of putting the counter-argument. None the less I shall have the temerity to oppose one Clause of this Bill, that is Part I, Clause I, which deals with the very important subject of the assimilation of the local government and Parliamentary franchise. I have great diffidence, I assure the House, in saying anything in opposition to this Clause, which is the result of a recommendation of the conference presided over by Mr. Speaker himself. I will state very briefly the grounds of my opposition to it. It seems to me that the effect would be to give the local government vote to very many people who pay no local taxation, or in other words rates, and to many also who in fact have no local connection at all, and no interest in local affairs. I would only instance such persons as exist, under present conditions, in large numbers, among others evacuees, temporary war workers, even visitors, who will be returning in quite considerable numbers to the seaside towns, and who, for instance, may be there at the appropriate period.
It can be said, I know, that if a person is fit to vote in a Parliamentary election


he must be fit to vote in a local government election. I suggest there is a great difference, because a voter in a Parliamentary election is, in the first place, a taxpayer, either direct or indirect. Many of them in these days, far more than was the case a short time ago, are direct taxpayers. In any case he is a taxpayer, and so he is personally concerned as to how the taxes are spent. In the second place, he is voting for a member of the national Parliament which deals with national affairs and national expenditure, and it is therefore appropriate that he should vote for a Member in that Parliament. On the other hand, the voter in a local government election, if he is neither a ratepayer nor a local resident, has no personal interest in how the rates are spent, and he has little or no interest in how local affairs are managed, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) mentioned, contributions are made from the taxes to certain local services, and some of them are considerable. It is an old and a cardinal principle of government that there should be no taxation without representation. I suggest that the converse is also true—that there should be no representation without taxation, and that this includes local taxation, in other words rates. That is a principle that ought to be adhered to in local government as well as national government. It does, therefore, seem very undesirable that large numbers of persons should be able to vote in local elections without the restraining influence of feeling that they will have to pay their share of any expenditure which is incurred by those whom they may elect.
For the same reason it is doubtful—perhaps this is a little off the point—whether compounding for rates ought to be allowed, because under that system occupiers whose rates are compounded for by the owners of their premises, and whose rates are supposed to be included in their rent, do not really feel they are paying rates at all. Many are unaware that they are paying rates, and have little or no interest in how those rates are spent. In fact, the only person who benefits by the system of compounding is the rate collector, who finds it a great deal easier to collect in bulk, so to speak, from the landlord than from a number of tenants separately.
I fear that this proposal, if given effect to, may have one of two results, or possibly each of these two results in some measure. The first is that there will be a large number of voters who from sheer lack of either local feeling or financial interest will not bother to vote at all in local elections. The second is that there will be many voters who, having no financial responsibility, may be persuaded by specious promises to vote for candidates who put forward possibly very expensive though superficially attractive schemes, in order to catch the votes of persons who in any case will not have to pay the bills.
What are claimed as the advantages of this scheme? Is it the saving of trouble to those who have to prepare the voters' registers? If so, I suggest it is only necessary for the national registration officer, who I believe hands over the lists to the local registration officers who prepare the registers, to mark each person on his list on the national register as "occupier" or "ratepayer" or otherwise, in order to get over any difficulty. Or is it to ensure that Service men who belong to a locality should have the local government vote? It is, I agree, most desirable that men who are in the Services should be able to vote in their own locality where, if they are not so at the time, they are practically certain to be householders and ratepayers when they come back. Surely it is a simple matter to deal with this, because in any case Service men are noted as such on the register, and there is no earthly reason why Service men should not be an exception to the general rule that occupiers and ratepayers should be the electors in local government elections.
I do not think there has been any widespread demand for this proposal. It has had very little publicity and I believe it is little understood. If it was better understood, I believe that local feeling would be almost everywhere against it, as it is already against it in a great many cases. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter, and consider whether so radical a change is called for in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon called a Bill which is transitory in its effects in many cases. It is a temporary Measure, pending the passing of a more comprehensive and more permanent Measure when the country has settled down after these wars. I hope that the Government will allow the con-


tinuance of the local government register.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon also said, there is no question of party influence. He has satisfied himself, and I think he is probably perfectly right, that no party is likely to gain, one way or the other. It is a matter of what is best in the local interest. Surely it is very desirable that local elections should be voted in by local people, who have local interests and a stake, so to speak, in
the locality. I hope that the local government register will be allowed to continue, and that the Government will put in Amendments at a later stage to continue a separate local government register—which could be done without excessive difficulty. That local government register ought to be, in my humble submission, a register of persons who have a stake in the locality, who are occupiers and ratepayers in the locality, with the addition, which it would be perfectly simple to make, because their names will be given for the purpose of the Parliamentary register, of all those men and women belonging to the locality who are serving in His Majesty's Forces and are away at the time. I hope that this will receive some fresh consideration from the Government, and that they have not entirely closed their mind to the possibility of making what I believe would be an improvement in this Bill, by the omission of this particular Clause.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I welcome the proposals in the Bill, and particularly the one with which the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) disagreed—the assimilation of the franchise. On the Speaker's Conference we went into this point very fully. I would like to summarise some of the reasons why we recommended in favour of assimilation. The first is that, on inquiring of the various local authorities' associations, we found that an overwhelming majority of the members of the associations were in favour of this change. That weighed quite heavily with the Conference.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I wonder whether those associations, which undoubtedly sent in a great many resolutions, had taken the trouble to consult their constituent members.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Were the views of the local authority representatives, as expressed at the conference, based on the old register or on the "Temporary Provisions" register?

Mr. Parker: I think they were based on the general question of whether the two franchises should be assimilated. The different local authority organisations circulated the councils which are members of those associations, asking for their views on those subjects. Their views were sent in to Mr. Speaker, and we had them before us. The second reason which influenced us
strongly was that at the present time a larger and larger proportion of the expenditure on local government services comes from the national Exchequer. In many cases 50 per cent., and in other cases more than 50 per cent., of the cost of such services is borne by the Exchequer. Under present Income Tax arrangements, the great mass of the population contribute to taxation, and it was felt that the great mass of the people in a locality contribute to the cost of such services; if not from the rates, then from taxation.
Another argument which weighed with at least some of us is that our present population is getting older and older. Under the present local government franchise the old, rather than the young, choose the members of local authorities. Many of us felt that it would be an advantage to have the young people not ruled out, as they are at present, from choosing the councils. Also, many of the services run by local authorities, such as swimming baths, playing fields, and even libraries and so on, are used by the young more than by the old. Many of us felt that it would be an advantage to have the young taking part in the election of councils, and sitting on councils; and that assimilation would give them an interest in local government which they do not possess at the moment, partly because they are excluded from the franchise. Those are the three main reasons which led the conference to take that line.
I welcome also the proposal for the abolition of the spouses vote, but two other proposals with regard to the franchise which were made by the Speaker's Conference have been omitted. The first relates to the university franchise. I share the view of my party that, on the


whole, university seats, being a form of double voting, should be abolished; but if we are to have university representation, surely all graduates ought to have the vote. We ought not to have the anomalous position by which in some universities, such as the Scottish universities, all graduates get the vote, because they cannot get their degree unless they pay the qualifying fee, whereas other universities have a different system. In some cases graduates have to contract in to get the vote, and in others they have to contract out if they do not want to be included in the register. The Speaker's Conference recommended that all graduates should have the vote in each university, if university voting was continued, that registration should be automatic, and that no fees should be charged for registration.
May I give some figures to show the extraordinarily anomalous position at present? At the moment, in the Scottish universities, all graduates automatically get the vote. In the Scottish universities 52,981 had the vote in 1935—that was the number of graduates for those universities. But in London it was estimated that there were 72,000 graduates, and yet only 17,817 were electors—which is about one in four of the total number of graduates. That is an absurd difference. In Oxford and Cambridge at one time there was the same position as in London, and they had to contract in in order to get a vote. In both universities convocation changed the rules—about 1914 in one case, and about 1930 in the other. Now graduates get the vote at both universities unless they particularly ask for their fee to be cut down so that they may be excluded from the Register. In London they still have to contract in if they want to get the vote; most graduates at the time of taking a degree are short of money, have not got the extra pound to spare, and do not think it very important at that time; so they do not register. I would like the suggestion of the Speaker's Conference on that point to be adopted.
Another suggestion of the Speaker's Conference related to registration of electors. It was suggested by the conference that no person should be entitled to be registered for more than one residence qualification or for more than one business qualification, if such an arrangement were practicable. I would urge that

that should be carried out. I suggest that it is quite practicable. In this Bill we have allowed a certain amount of discretion in the powers given to registration officers. For example, in the case of anyone who happens to have two business qualifications in different wards of the same county borough, the registration officer's job is to see that he is registered only once. The same rule applies if there are two residence qualifications. On the other hand, if one lives in a county, and has two or more than two qualifications in different parishes, it is the job of the registration officer to see that one is entered more than once. The idea presumably is that a man with similar qualifications in two different parishes can take part in the parish or district elections in both, but is supposed to use only one vote if there is a county council election. There is a certain anomaly in this. It means that if there are by-elections for any of the local authority units in a county, an elector who is registered for the same qualification more than once can take part in those by-elections, but if in a county borough there are by-elections in different wards the elector has not the opportunity of taking part, except if the by-election is in the ward where he is registered. If, already, it is possible for registration officers to see that in a county borough a person is not registered more than once, why cannot that provision be applied in the country as a whole in preparing this general register? It does not seem to be administratively impossible, and I would like to know why the suggestion of the Conference on that point is not being carried out.
With regard to the actual register—the two new registers which are to operate side by side—I thought that the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), about there being a gap between the ending of Parliament and the meeting of a new Parliament was very important. It is desirable to meet that point, but I would regret it if, in order to do so, the Home Secretary were to abolish the type of register that we agreed to in 1943, by which elections could be fought on an up-to-date register. I would urge the desirability of keeping some arrangement for having an up-to-date register. To give my own constituency as an illustration, at the last election it had 169,000 electors on the register. The register on which the election was


fought in October, 1935, was drawn up in June, yet 15,000 people had removed from the constituency in the interval and a similar number came in; it was impossible for any party to trace them, or for those people to exercise their votes in that General Election. That sort of thing applies particularly in Outer London areas, and it may apply in other parts of the country.
It is desirable to have an up-to-date register, and only the arrangement agreed to in 1943 can supply that register. I hope that, in considering Amendments on this matter, the Government will stick to some register of that kind. National registration may have its uses after the war. We shall presumably want to keep a system of military service, and we shall also have extensive social security schemes in operation. I should have thought that the maintenance of some sort of National Registration in peace-time would be an advantage, and that it should be continued as a basis for a register. I hope that that 1943 type of register will be kept in being; otherwise, we shall have the danger of elections being fought on a register which is out of date, and which does not give a fair reflection of the feeling of the country. I would like also to support the point of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I hope that this proposal for cutting down the seven and a half weeks' notice of an election, does not mean that we are to have an attempt next year at a rush election, without adequate notice. I think, therefore, we ought to be given some assurance to-day by the Government in their reply.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Jewson: I did not want to go into the question of the temporary arrangements in this Bill, because they are, comparatively speaking, unimportant and seem to me to be satisfactory. But I want to say a few words arising from my own experience of this very important question of the assimilation of the two voting lists. With much that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) said on the questions of taxation and representation, I should agree. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member who has just spoken, much of the expenditure of local authorities is provided directly from taxation, and, if I am capable of judging the matter, I should have thought that this

will become more and more the case, as we pass through these next 10 years or so. In my experience, I have often been astonished and very greatly concerned because, in cases where Government grants have been made to local authorities, not only the local voters and ratepayers, but actually the councillors of these authorities, seem to think that, in so far as their expenditure is covered by a Government grant, it is of no real interest or consequence.
Supposing they are spending £100,000 on education, and £50,000 is coming by way of Government grant, they think they have to look only at the expenditure of £50,000. I can assure the House that that is a view which has been very widely taken and expressed in my own experience. Of course, it is an entirely wrong view, and I think that, perhaps, the fact that in future the taxpayers, as such, are to be allowed to vote in local government elections, and that the voting will not be based merely on the ratepayer side, may do something towards curing that idea and making people understand that all expenditure, whether it comes out of the right-hand or the left-hand pocket, is expenditure just the same, and affects you personally in your pocket. Indeed, I should not be surprised if, in future years, we look back to this Bill, and to the fact that we are in future going to vote on a Parliamentary basis for local government, as the source from which will flow—what so many of us greatly desire—a complete revision of the basis of providing funds for local government. This may well be a step to that desirable position.
I think that, if we get the Parliamentary register accepted for local government, it may, quite likely, assist us to get rid of the apathy, which has been such a burden to those of us who have worked in connection with local government affairs in these past 20 years or so. I cannot help thinking that if everybody who has a vote knows that, whenever there is an election, he or she will have that vote, it will be much less difficult to arouse their interest when it comes to 1st November. For these two reasons, I am glad that the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference has been embodied in this Bill, and I shall certainly give it my support.

1.50 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: We are discussing a Bill of the widest signi-


ficance, affecting the lives and opinions of every citizen in this country, and that impels me to ask that we should consider the method of election of not less than 25 per cent. of all the municipal corporations, and county councils. I refer to the aldermanic system. I am told that it is untimely, and perhaps unseemly and too controversial a matter to raise at the present time. I wholly disagree with that point of view. It may be that the House will disagree with me—that is very natural. But I would ask the House to agree with me that it is, at least, relevant that we should discuss this old-established method of conducting our local affairs. It certainly is time, in my view, to ventilate it.
I have made some superficial, and, at times, rather more than superficial, study of this whole question, and I cannot find in any book that I have been able to get hold of, in our Library or elsewhere, anything that gives more than the faintest praise for this system. I am referring now to books of such authority as "Local Government in Modern England," "An Introduction to the Law of Local Government," to the admirable work by Redlitch and Hirst and to all modern, or comparatively modern, works on the subject, in none of which did I find anything but the faintest praise. Some people say, "Let sleeping systems lie," and I will agree that this is a system of very ancient lineage, and that it has the highest traditions of public service and honour. But I would ask the House whether we are justified in continuing such a system in the light of universal franchise, both Parliamentary and local, through the complete assimilation of the register. To me, it seems something more than an anomaly.
May I give, very shortly, the history of the situation? In 1835, the whole system was within an ace of being completely eliminated, but members of another place insisted on their constitutional rights to force it back upon this House and did so. That remained for more than 50 years, until, in 1888, after a very long Debate in this House on the question whether the county councils should be given the aldermanic system, and whether it should continue in the municipal corporations, there was a very close Division, and, in the 464 who recorded their votes, there was a majority

of only 36 in favour of retaining the system. I think that will show that, although this is a subject that is not often discussed, it is worthy of discussion and that, if sufficient light is put upon it, we should do away with it.
There is another point, which, to me, is of great interest. In 1894, another Act was passed which established the urban and rural district and parish councils. They were set up, but no one sought to give either the urban or rural districts aldermanic rank, and I would say, as an ex-rural district councillor, that many rural districts, and certainly some of the larger urban districts, would be fully justified in claiming it, as they are just as much entitled to the aldermanic system as are some of the smaller boroughs in this country. They conduct affairs of the highest importance. I do not want to suggest that such a thing should be established in this House, but it could be done with just as much justification as it is done now in our local authorities, and we might then have the spectacle—although I think it is an unthinkable proposal—of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) coming here without ever having to face an election.
I ask how this House can justify the continuance of this system in face of universal franchise and the enlightenment of our people on this matter of local elections. I would remind the House that the aldermen are elected for a period of six years, and that half of them retire every three years. What does it mean? That is twice the tenure of a councillor, and it means that a political or other party—and nobody can deny that they exist—if it has a majority, can, by electing one-half of the aldermen from that party, maintain itself in power for a period of years. How can we justify such a system in these days? I leave it to some others who are much more qualified than myself and who, perhaps, are even aldermen themselves, to justify a system which I think ought to be altered. I cannot myself attempt to do so, because I look upon the system as thoroughly out of date and fraught with uupleasant possibilities of log-rolling and worse. I pay my tribute, as I have said, to the traditions, honour and services of aldermen on local authorities, but I urge the Minister concerned to give this matter more than a little consideration, and I


naturally reserve my right to move an Amendment on the Committee stage.
I find myself in one particular difficulty in regard to the City of London. I would not attempt to criticise the very remarkable history and services of its aldermen or of the whole City of London Corporation. I passed a remark not so long ago in this House, when the Home Secretary was here, and as a result I discovered that the right hon. Gentleman was an alderman, and was very proud of the fact. If I were an alderman, I daresay I should be proud of the fact, but I should also feel that it would be a perfectly just thing to abolish the system. I cannot help suggesting to the Home Secretary, although he is not in the House at the moment, that he would achieve some kudos if he would take the line of the gentleman walking up the steps of the scaffold who said:
It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done
—if he would abolish himself and, at the same time, the system which has no justification whatever in modern times.

1.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: It is very seldom that I join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, but I am going all out to save him from himself, and, incidentally, to save the Home Secretary as well. I cannot bear his idea of the complete abolition of the aldermanic system, which has grown up and has become an integral part in the government of this country throughout the centuries. That it should be suddenly and solemnly suggested that the system should be abolished is, if I may say so to my hon. and gallant Friend, somewhat iconoclastic. It is not a matter which I anticipated having to comment upon, or I would have prepared myself upon the subject, but I happen to have the somewhat unusual privilege, I think, of representing a constituency which contains no less than three authorities where the aldermanic system is in use, and I feel quite certain that the words used by my hon. and gallant Friend, when he suggested that they are out of date and open to allegations of log-rolling and worse, most assuredly do not apply in the instances of which I have personal knowledge.
There was one statement by the Home Secretary with which I was in entire accord. He said that this was a difficult

Bill to draft. I seriously desire to call the attention of the Solicitor-General to the exceedingly bad drafting of the Bill. I have had a fairly long experience of trying to understand Bills and Acts of Parliament, not so long as that of my right hon. Friend, but still fairly comprehensive, both with regard to this century and the previous century. I can never recall having tried to peruse and understand a Bill with so little success. As I understand it, under Clause 1, the Bill purports to give the franchise to a substantial body of people for the first time and under Clause 2 it proceeds to take it away again. That is an example of drafting such as we surely would not expect to have presented to us. Another thing which I found most irritating was in Clause 5. When I started to read Clause 5 I came across the expression the "appropriate date," and, being innocent in my ignorance, I turned to the definition Clause at the end of the Bill, to find that there was nothing there about the appropriate date. Still innocent and still ignorant, I referred to the various Acts of Parliament quoted in the early part of the paragraph, to see if they contained any information about the appropriate date. They did not do so, so I struggled through the Clause until I arrived almost at the end of the Clause about two and a half pages later, when I came upon the definition of the expression. It is only one simple and small example of the excruciatingly bad drafting of the Bill.
There are two main things I want to say. One is with regard to the decision of the Government that co-opted members of the local authorities shall retire at the first opportunity. I have had some correspondence with the Home Secretary upon this point and I would like to express my personal appreciation of the fact that he has found it possible to include that provision, which I am certain is the correct one and will, I believe, meet with universal approval throughout the country. There is one other thing with regard to the extension of the local government franchise. I am not frightened of it and, in the long run, I believe it is the correct thing to do, but I do have the greatest perturbation about the enlargement of the franchise at the present time when the Parliamentary franchise itself is working upon an entirely temporary system. The old principles of Parliamentary franchise have more or less gone by the board for


the time being, owing to the incidence of war, and if we allow the local government franchise to assimilate itself to the Parliamentary franchise, we may get the most extraordinary and unexpected results in local government elections.
I have in mind one possibility in my own constituency in connection with a rural district council. In that very large area there is one parish which normally caters for 50,000 holiday-makers a year. As far as I can interpret this Bill, it is likely that the local government elections will come along during the peak of the holiday season in this part of the country and in the circumstances which we may anticipate, those visitors to the area may be registered there and may very well become local electors. Therefore, we shall have the whole of our local election in this rural district area weighted—and very substantially weighted indeed—by visitors, who are temporarily resident for a matter of six, seven or eight weeks in the neighbourhood, but who, in fact, have their real interests and homes in Nottingham, Leicester and other largely urban centres. That is a very serious difficulty indeed. I will not go as far as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), who claimed, as I understood, that only ratepayers should be entitled to vote. Interest in the local authority is very much wider than the present ratepayers' interests, but I do not go as far as to believe that at the present time, under the present system of franchise we have, there may not be very great difficulties indeed until we get back to the normal Parliamentary franchise.
I would like to ask the Solicitor-General, when he replies, if he will clear up the reference made by the Home Secretary, which, quite likely, I did not correctly understand. I understood him to say that he was doubtful if anything could be done for Servicemen overseas in regard to local elections. If I was right in my understanding of his remarks, then does not that mean that, notwith-standing this enormous change in our system, and alteration in the local government franchise, we are not going to give the benefit in those local government elections to any of the ex-Servicemen overseas? That I could hardly believe to be true, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to correct me in regard, I trust, to the false impression I

have received. Turning to the question of the aldermanic franchise, can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that he has taken into account one of the small but very important and vital instances of our local government in this country, and that is the ancient charter borough? I trust that in the vast and very complex arrangements contained in this Bill, my right hon. Friend has not included anything which is detrimental to the interests of those few but exceedingly successful experienced and well run organisations.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) said that he fears the assimilation of the Parliamentary and local government registers because he anticipates that people who have gone on holiday to, say, Skegness from Nottingham, are going to find themselves registered and able to vote at Skegness. I think that that arises from a misunderstanding of how the register is prepared. It is prepared from the record of the food office and unless one is staying a long time in a place one does not register at that place but obtains an emergency card. I do not think the number of people who are going to spend more than one month's holiday at a seaside or holiday resort is going to be as large as the hon. and gallant Member suggests. Most people are fortunate if they get a fortnight's holiday or even a week's holiday.
The Home Secretary in moving the Second Reading of this Bill made a very great claim for it. He said that it was a continuance of the Measures which started with the great Reform Bill of 1832, and I think there is some justification that it is a Bill which will influence and establish our electoral machinery in the next half dozen years or more, a time which for our national and local government will be very critical indeed. Therefore, because it is not in any sense a slight Measure but is a complicated Measure, we ought to make it as good a Measure as we possibly can now and not regard it as a small temporary thing.
I want to suggest some of the things which should have been put into the Bill, and, seeing that we have had an invitation from the Home Secretary to put down Amendments, I wish to give him notice that I shall at least put Amendments down


to try and introduce some of these things. At this time when we are recasting the electoral system, it is indefensible that we have not come down to the position of saying, "One man or woman, one vote." We are still perpetrating the completely unjustifiable, bad and undemocratic system of giving some people because they happen to own property or who have taken a university degree and in some cases paid a guinea, two votes. I do not want to abolish the right of universities to return Members to this House or to take away the right of a person who has property to have a vote in the constituency where his property is, but the elector should have to choose which vote he is going to use. That is a very simple thing which could have been introduced into this Bill at the start. While we are recasting our electoral system, the second principle we should have tried to insert should have been to see that each vote cast in the country would have an equal influence in determining the affairs of the nation. The only way in which one can do that is by giving each vote cast in the country an approximately equal share in the voting power of the House of Commons.
I am not going to describe in any detail that well known system of proportional representation, with the single transfer of the vote, which would achieve that object. I know that many hon. Members here object to it very strongly and I am sure too that many hon. Members have not the slightest idea of how that particular system works. But while we are recasting our electoral system, now is the time to have introduced proportional representation, with the single transfer of the vote, or, as a very bad second, the provision known as the alternative vote. I would rather have that than nothing. We have all been made very much aware by this war of the great anomalies which have arisen because some constituencies are very much larger than the others and a small interim Measure has been passed to deal with that to some degree, but I am disappointed to see that the permanent Boundary Commission is not going to begin its work until the end of 1946 unless something comes along to alter that arrangement. The Boundary Commission will not have been able to do anything and its report will not have actually been carried into effect in time for the general election after

the next, and I am sure that the general election after the next is really to be an important and a decisive one. We should, in a comprehensive Measure setting up this Boundary Commission, have included in the work of the Boundary Commission the review of the City of London and of university constituencies so that we could have this principle of equal representation as soon as possible for each vote in this House of Commons.
I come to the question of the electoral register. Much of the provision of this Bill is concerned with the setting up of machinery to produce this register. However, I submit that there is no necessity to maintain a register at all; I am quite convinced we could have perfectly satisfactory elections without a register. The purpose of our electoral machinery is to make it possible for every adult citizen to exercise his vote, and one could quite easily carry out an election, while national registration exists, by the adult producing his identity card, if that was suitably endorsed giving his age. This could be stamped by the polling clerk and he could then vote. That is perfectly practicable and feasible, and I believe the Vivian Committee did suggest that was the way in which an election could be carried on in war time. It may be objected, of course, that once the war is over we shall not continue to carry national registration cards in our pockets but I am quite sure that we shall all be carrying a national insurance card, and the necessary information giving one's age and residence could be included if we really wanted to set up a system which would make it possible for no one to be excluded from voting. Nevertheless, if the House takes a contrary decision and decides that we shall continue with this system of a register, I have one or two observations to make regarding the register.
The first thing I do not like about this Bill is that it gives a gap between 1st April and 30th September, 1945 and, if an election takes place in that period, it will be on the register that was prepared in May. One good thing about the recent Act passed by this House, which dealt with the principle of continuous registration, was that the register was not published until the election was initiated. That means that as many people as possible are on the register, but now we have departed from that principle and we


are having a gap of five months in the middle of next year. If an election takes place in that period, it will be on the register that was prepared in May. It means that during that period, if it is so desired, an election can be pushed through; instead of taking 7½ weeks from the initiation of the election to polling day, it can go through, if necessary, in 17 days. I submit that is making it much more possible to have a "snap" and a dishonest election than the previous Act would allow. The opinion has been expressed that when this present Government dissolves and goes to the country, it will be in a spirit of friendliness and without recrimination, but I do not think that is how it will happen. I think some crisis will arise similar to, or worse than the recent crisis over Greece, which will split the Government. If that happens, there will be acrimony and recrimination and it is very likely indeed that the election will be fought as a "snap" election, with the sort of red herring we have seen in the past. It seems to me that this Bill makes that possible in the time when it is most likely to happen. I would prefer the previous arrangement whereby the election takes at least seven weeks, which I think would give a much more honest and fair view of the country's opinion.
I would like to make a few very detailed observations on the preparation of the register. I hope it will be printed and not duplicated. As far as I can ascertain, some returning officers are still thinking in terms of duplicated lists, and that is very bad for a register which has to last five months. So I think it should be printed, and I would like to see it laid down as a hard and fast rule that all electoral registers should be printed on one side only. That is a very great convenience to those who have to go out canvassing. Secondly, wherever possible, I would like to see the register arranged in street or geographical order, instead of in alphabetical order. In country districts where one cannot put it in street order, would it not be possible, on the maps which are published showing the electoral boundaries, to follow the practice of Army maps and split up the map with a grid, and then show by a reference number in the register, the voters who are in each square? I think that would be of some assistance to those who are in charge of

the conduct of the election campaign, though it is not a point of very great substance.
Here we are producing a big Bill recasting our electoral scheme, but there is one problem which it is not attempting to approach at all, the problem of the non-voter. At the last election, I think approximately 20 per cent. of the electorate did not register their votes at all, and that makes this House unrepresentative. Here, I think, we should copy the experience of Australia where they have a system of compulsory attendance at the polling booths, but not compulsory voting. Surely it is not too much to ask every citizen to perform the civic act every four or five years of going to the polling booth and indicating which candidate he wishes to vote for, or registering the fact that he does not want to vote at all. Then there should be proper provision for people to register themselves, if they so desire, as conscientious objectors against voting. I believe the Australian elections have over a 99 per cent. poll, so that would be a good thing. Some very important consequences would follow this procedure. It would mean that instead of the parties vying with each other to drag the sick, the dying and the infirm to the polling booths, it would be the responsibility of the returning officer to see that such persons as could not properly be expected to go to the polling booth, would be allowed to vote in their homes or by post or be taken to the polling booth. That would get over this great and contentious question of the use of cars by the parties.
I am sorry, too, that this Bill does not deal at all with that very important and vexed question of finance at elections. There have been proposals from time to time that the amount to be spent per elector should be cut down so that it would not favour quite so much as in the past those who have great financial resources. I do not think we shall ever get a satisfactory control of election finance until the returning officer is made the collector and the distributor of all moneys, so that any money to be used in the election campaign, in any way whatsoever, is paid to that officer and he publishes a list showing where it has come from, and he will be the sole person to pay the money out. I know that would give him a bit more work but surely that would put the use of money at elections on a very much fairer and proper basis?


I think there is great objection to the present system of requiring a deposit of £150 which is not returnable if insufficient votes are received. On the other hand, I agree there ought to be provision to prevent irresponsible candidates coming along and causing a lot of bother and confusion at the last minute.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Like Common Wealth.

Mr. Lawson: In answer to that interjection, I would say that Common Wealth leas never yet lost a deposit. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Liberal Nationals have."] It is very right and proper that a man who cannot get one-eighth or one-tenth of the votes should in some way or other be penalised, and I would suggest that the person who does not secure the minimum number of votes should be disqualified from standing for Parliament for a term of say five years. That would be a much fairer thing to do.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Surely that is one of the most unreasonable suggestions the hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon. Does he honestly consider that would stop the multiplicity of candidates?

Mr. Lawson: I think it would stop the sort of candidate who has been seen in the past running from one by-election to another because, after all, the money penalty is quite indefensible. One man can easily find £150 and can go on losing it every three months if he so desires. The suggestion I have made would act impartially in respect of those who have means and those who have not.
I wish to make one or two observations on the question of local government elections. I agree very heartily with the hon. Member who wished to see the aldermanic principle abolished, and I will certainly support him if he brings forward an Amendment on that score. I am glad to see also that the fallacy has been demolished that those who pay rates have a greater stake in the finances of the country than those who do not. After all, the great proportion of moneys dispersed by local authorities is coming more and more from the central Government funds, and if you take the case of a family man with two children, you will find that in the last year before this war such a man with £100 income paid within

one per cent. of the percentage in taxation paid by a similar man with £1,000 a year, for the man with £100 paid about 18 per cent. and the man with £1,000 a year about 19 per cent. The man with the larger income paid mostly in direct taxation and the man with the smaller income paid by indirect taxation. So the range of income which represents 99 per cent. of the population has the same proportional stake in the finances of the country, and it is a fallacy to assume that ratepayers, as such, have any more right to vote in local government elections than non-ratepayers.
I would like to see the principle of the Boundary Commission applied to local government constituencies or wards as well. I am quite sure that there are many anomalies in local government where one council represents very many more electors than another. I know that borough councils, and so on, have power to ask for a revision of ward boundaries but surely the thing to do while we are setting up a Boundary Commission is to let that Commission review all local government ward boundaries as well. That is a provision which I am sure ought to go into this Bill.
Lastly, I come to the question of the Forces registration. I, and some of my hon. Friends, have been saying to the Government on such occasions as we have been able, that the present system of registering men in the Forces is just not good enough, even assuming that you get 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of those in the Forces registered. That will not enable them to cast an effective vote, a vote that they have really had time to consider. Neither do I think that the suggestion of a postal vote will work; it is a step in the right direction but it is not the best way. It is amazing to hear the Government say that they are very anxious to use the best possible method that can be suggested for those in the Forces to cast their votes, and more or less inviting hon. Members to put down Amendments suggesting how it can be done. I cannot understand why the Government take that attitude because they have actual precedents to go on in this matter.
The Dominions have conducted elections in the field during this war in which men and women overseas have been able to vote. It has not been on the basis of preparing a register in most cases, but


by using whatever method is most suitable in each area. I believe that on one occasion some New Zealanders were firing their guns against the Japanese when another soldier approached them and said to the N.C.O. in charge, "I am your relief. Each one of you has to go back in turn to cast his vote." If that has actually been done under active service conditions by Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America I am quite sure that Britain can do it too, and I suggest that the Government study what has been done by the Dominions in this matter because it is certain and obvious that the only way to get the real views of the men and women in the Forces, particularly those overseas, either for national or local government elections, is to conduct elections in the field. That is what I am asking the Government to do.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: Although there are a number of points on which I would like to follow the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), I will defer them until the Committee stage rather than take up the time of the House now. I doubt, however, whether it would be wise to make men vote compulsorily——

Mr. Lawson: I said that there should be compulsory attendance at the polling booth where a man could register the fact that he did not choose to vote for any of the candidates.

Mr. Tinker: That seems rather silly. I thought the hon. Member meant that a man must record his vote. It is even worse if he wants a man to have the opportunity of saying that he does not want to vote for any of the candidates. We ought to allow voters to have their freedom to do as they require, within the law. After all, that is what we are fighting for. This Measure we are discussing to-day is very important. When the Home Secretary mentioned 1832 I am sure that the minds of many of us went back to that period of history and compared it to the present period. I am rather sorry that we have not a better attendance for this Debate, for the main proposal of the Bill—to provide for the assimilation of the Parliamentary and local government franchise—is a big change, and I certainly welcome it. I always thought it an anomaly that if a

man was entitled to a Parliamentary vote he should not automatically be entitled to a municipal vote, and vice versa.
I would like the Solicitor-General, when he replies to the Debate, to give us more information in regard to Clause 5. The Home Secretary dealt with the position of co-opted members and it seems a rather curious and one-sided position for all three to retire in one particular ward.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not the present policy of the London County Council that the whole Council retires every three years?

Captain Duncan: Except aldermen.

Mr. Walkden: Well, they are no use anyway.

Mr. Tinker: In Leigh, the town I represent, one out of three retires every year. If, say, in a certain ward there are two co-opted members and another member who was elected in 1937, and all three retire and offer themselves for re-election, it seems curious, and I would like some explanation of that. As regards the date of the election, people have said to me, "Why have it in November? Why is this month sacrosanct? "The Home Secretary ought to be able to defend it or alter it. November is probably the worst month in the year for everybody. There are foggy and cold nights, and it is difficult for politicians to get to see everybody they would like to see because it imposes such a physical strain upon them. Why not alter the date to 1st September when we are just getting away from the summer period? [An HON. MEMBER: "That is harvest time."] It may be; I had not thought of that. There may be other objections and, if so, I would like to know what they are. But in working-class neighbourhoods 1st September is the day they would like, and I intend to move an Amendment to this effect on the Committee stage in order to test the feeling of the House.
On previous occasions when I have tried to get an alteration of procedure with regard to the election of aldermen I have been told that it was not the right time, and that it could only be done when the whole question was being examined. Well, the whole question is being examined now and here is our opportunity. On a council whatever party is in power elects the aldermen. A man


is established for life, as it were. Can anybody tell me in how many cases aldermen have been removed from office? They sit year after year without their capabilities being tested by public opinion. I have never heard of any justification for this procedure. In days gone by there might have been something to be said for an alderman who was well educated staying on in office in order to instruct and guide new councillors. But to-day almost everyone who seeks office is well educated, and there is no reason why the present situation should continue. I, personally, think that everybody who wants to represent the public should, from time to time, go before the public in order to try to obtain a renewal of their confidence. If an alderman possesses outstanding qualities, and is well liked, he will be returned, and he would be more confident than ever in thinking that he had been returned to office. As I have said, I welcome the Bill, and I think the Speaker's Conference has done a good day's work.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: Early this afternoon a previous speaker expounded arguments in favour of the assimilation of the local government franchise and the Parliamentary franchise—and did it very fairly—but there is one comment I would like to make upon it. I suppose that all Members will agree that the whole case for the existence of local government rests on the belief that there are some things much better done by officials under the control of local bodies than they would be done by officials under the control of a central Government. That, I take it, means that the essence of the matter is in the local knowledge of the members of local bodies. That is what gives a value to local government. They know much better, it is argued, what is wanted locally and what is possible locally in regard to many matters. It seems to me, therefore, that a similar argument can be brought forward with regard to electors. Before a man can properly exercise the right to elect members of a local body he should himself have some local knowledge, otherwise I do not see how he could claim to be qualified to exercise his right at election time. For the purpose of local government franchise it seems to me desirable that the electors should have resided for a reasonable period in the locality in which they are to exercise

their franchise. If that be conceded as a reasonable argument, I should have thought that 12 months could not be held to be an unreasonably long mimimum period. I should have thought that most Members with experience of local government would agree that it is hardly possible to get any local knowledge of value by residing in an area for much less than 12 months.
I quite see the administrative advantages of having a complete assimilation of the two franchises. It makes it very easy, but I do not think that that should be the sole consideration in our minds. I should have thought it well to consider whether it would not be better in future that the residential qualification should be at least 12 months. I should have thought, in the interests of local government, that was desirable because, as I said to begin with, if there is anything in the case for local government it rests on local knowledge. To acquire local knowledge requires time. I appreciate that, from a Parliamentary point of view, it would be undesirable for a man to lose the right to vote at a Parliamentary election merely because he had moved from one part of the country to another, but I should have thought that there would be no hardship in saying that a man could not vote in the local government election in a particular district to which he had only moved a few months before and which, possibly, he might even contemplate leaving within a few months. I cannot see that such a thing would make for stability, or that there is any claim in equity for it, but I venture to suggest that is a point which might be worth consideration at a later stage of the Bill.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As a Member of the Speaker's Conference, I supported all of the more important recommendations of that Conference, and I am very happy to find to-day that, in the main, at any rate, those recommendations are embodied in the present Bill, and that the House of Commons, in their discussion to-day, have, with few exceptions, supported the Bill.
The main point is, of course, that of the assimilation of the Parliamentary and municipal franchise, and the only serious objections to that were those by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir


G. Jeffreys), who raised the matter earlier on, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). As far as I understand it, the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field objected on the ground that the distinction between these two franchises ought to remain, with the qualification that the local government registers should be the same as those existed in times gone by, whereas the hon. Member for Colchester is quite willing that there should be assimilation provided there is introduced in some shape or form—he suggested two registration periods — a provision as to permanency of occupation. I want to put to both hon. Members what would be the effect, first of one, and then of the other, suggestion. The effect of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would be that the great bulk of ex-Servicemen coming back to live in this country whose wives have been living with their fathers and mothers, or in some friends' house, would be excluded from the local government register; for they will, in all probability, be lodgers for a considerable time. He will realise that the great distinction between municipal and Parliamentary franchise has been that whereas a lodger gets the Parliamentary vote, he does not get the local authority vote.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I went out of my way to say that Servicemen and women who are away might well be, and should be, on the local government register—on the register of the district in which they have lived before, or where their people were living at the time.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I did not misunderstand the hon. and gallant Member, but I think that he has misunderstood the objection to his argument. I am not discussing Service people away from home, but Service personnel when they come back. At that time, owing to the shortage of houses, a great many of them will be lodgers in the constituency and it is of the essence of the old system of municipal voters that the lodger does not have a vote. The effect—although I do not think it was his intention—of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would be to disenfranchise from local government elections a very large number of returned ex-Service personnel.
With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Colchester, take the case of a man living in one constituency who decides, as very large numbers of people have been forced to do during the war, to leave that constituency and go to another with every intention of staying there for, probably, the rest of his life. The hon. Member said that so far as concerns the constituency into which the man has gone and into which his interests have shifted, he should not have a vote whereas, presumably, in the constituency which he has recently left he will go on being an elector. That seems to me such an absurd conclusion that I cannot imagine the House of Commons accepting it.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate of course that that simply means that the voter who has moved into a new division has only to remain there for 12 months when he will get his vote. He would only suffer this one temporary inconvenience; he would not be disenfranchised for ever.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I quite appreciate that, but I am pointing out what an absurd result it would produce. It would mean that a man coming into a constituency would not get a vote, but would remain a voter in a place which he has left and from which, presumably, his interests have departed, and although the hon. Member says that the inconvenience would only be for a time, it would be for a continuing number of people who are continually changing their residence. With the greater mobility of labour in the days to come that will be an increasing factor, and, it seems to me, a wholly impossible one.
There are other reasons beyond those which I have given in these two cases why I think assimilation would be a great advantage, and one of them is that the distinction between lodger and tenant is a very narrow one. I believe the Solicitor-General will support me in that and, if the Lord Advocate were here I am sure he would enforce even more strongly my argument. In Scotland, where so many tenancies are single or double apartment tenancies, the distinction between lodger and tenant is so fine that it often happens that, with very little arrangements, the agents for the conflicting parties are agreeable to the inclusion of a man in the tenancy class as a local government elector instead of being in the lodger class


where he would be excluded from that franchise. This provision will thus make much less difference in Scotland than it is likely to make in England. The figure has been given of 7,000,000 additional votes. I do not suppose the Solicitor-General will know the exact figure, but it will he interesting to know what proportion would be expected to come from Scotland. In Scotland, a large number of those who would be counted as lodgers in England are already counted as tenants.
I would like to say a few words about the speech of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), who covered everything in the Bill and almost everything outside it. He started with Proportional Representation. We knocked out that hare in the last Debate, on the previous Bill brought in by the Home Secretary. I would only remind the House that Proportional Representation was turned down by the Speaker's Conference by an overwhelming majority, and that we who studied the matter in the Conference did not arrive at the conclusion, as the hon. Member suggested, that the more you knew of Proportional Representation, the more commendable it became. The more we studied it and examined its intricacies and fallacies, the more hopeless we found it.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it right, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House what happened at the Speaker's Conference, because, if he does, I shall try to catch your eye and give the House a different version of it?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking only for myself, and how it appeared to me and, presumably, to my friends at the Conference. I am not revealing anything which should not be made public.

Mr. Speaker: I have only just taken the Chair and have not heard all that has been said. Naturally, I could not forbid it, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to disclose the actual discussions at the Speaker's Conference and that he was not going to do anything of the sort.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I fully agree with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not disclose anything that took place at the Conference. I only said that those who considered the question, came to the con-

clusion that Proportional Representation was an impossible institution to introduce into the country as a whole.
Regarding the plural vote, I would remind the hon. Member for Skipton that on matters which were subject to party controversy at the Speaker's Conference, we came to an agreed compromise, and therefore those of us who are opposed to the plural vote accepted this compromise as an agreement on a controversial issue. The hon. Member objected to what he called "the postponement of permanent redistribution" as defined in this Bill. I would ask the hon. Member to address himself to the actual situation. During the war, and for some little time afterwards, the whole population have suffered and will suffer a migration which certainly will not stabilise itself for many months, possibly for a period of a year or 18 months. Does the hon. Member really want the permanent redistribution to be based on the abnormal conditions prevailing in such circumstances, or does he want to wait until the country has settled down a little? I think it is impossible to form a judgment of what the likely distribution of population will be in the future. It seems to me that the hon. Member has not addressed his mind to that obvious fact which was the basis of our recommendation.
He said that in his opinion it was quite unnecessary to have registration at all because polling could always be on the basis of the identity card. Of course, it would be possible to have a vote on that basis as an emergency measure, but surely the hon. Member does not imagine that that is the best system to adopt for the days to come. I will give one illustration of how it would work. In a constituency which I used
to represent there are three separate divisions in the borough. In two of them the Parliamentary representation is more or less equally balanced, whereas in the third there is a considerable predominance of one of the three parties. It is of the essence of the identity card scheme that the electors can vote anywhere. The point about voting on the card is that they can vote at the place where they happen to be living at the moment. It would be very easy at Leicester for the party which has a majority in one of the three constituencies to get a couple of thousand of their surplus voters to vote where they thought they would turn the scale, and it would


be very easy for such a scheme to be wangled to bring about something quite different from a proper representation of the people.
The hon. Member thought the institution of the 7th May register a bad thing. I do not know whether he has ever had the misfortune to stand at a by-election which took, not three weeks but seven. If he had, he would realise what a very miserable time candidates have under these drawn-out conditions. If we do not have the 7th May register, at any election that takes place before 9th September there will be at least seven and a half weeks between the declaration of the election and the poll. I am thankful that the Home Secretary has found it possible, first of all to bring in the annual register, which will deal with all the elections in the last quarter of the year, and, secondly, to bring in this May register which will deal with any General Election, and I think any by-election, that occurs in the second quarter of next year. I believe that, if there are likely to be General Elections in years to come, it may be quite a good plan to have a spring register every year as well as the one in the autumn.
The Home Secretary rightly said that the Speaker's Conference made only one exception to the full assimilation of the Parliamentary and local government registers and that was that the exclusion of peers should not apply to the local government elections. The Home Secretary said he was also introducing certain ratepayers who would otherwise have been excluded but, if I read the Bill correctly, there is still a third class that comes in. In the Second Schedule, paragraph 2 (2), as I read it, there are certain plural voters who come on to the municipal register as well. If I am mistaken about that, I shall be very glad to be so informed. But, if I am not, it would seem to me that we are getting a good long way from the simplicity of the system which the Speaker's Conference envisaged. If I am right in my reading of it, what will happen? Will there be a supplementary register including all those classes of persons for the purpose of keeping what will now once more be a separate municipal as well as Parliamentary register?
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) reminded the Home

Secretary that in our proposals at the Speaker's Conference we suggested, if it were practicable, that no one should be registered for more than two qualifications—one residential and one business—throughout the whole country. I do not find any trace of that in the Bill. Is consideration still being given to the point with a view to its inclusion in the later proposals which will come before the House? Further, I notice that there is no mention of our proposals about the university franchise. We proposed that it was to be maintained but that present arrangements for inclusion, on the register should be altered and that all graduates, both present and future, should be automatically put on the register. I shall be glad if the Solicitor-General will tell us whether that also is being considered with a view to incorporation in some future Measure.
I should like to say a word about the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He was of course speaking for himself and in no sense for the party. I am not speaking for the party either, though I think that in the main my views will more probably be those of the party as a whole, in so far as it is a party question at all, than those that my hon. Friend put forward. I do not take the view that it will be unfortunate if all the co-optees go at the first election. Everyone recognises that co-option has been necessary during the war, but it is not very satisfactory and the people of the country as a whole will be glad if they all have to get a popular vote if they wish to continue in local government.
I realise that November is not a very nice time for electioneering, nor perhaps for polling, but the electioneering for a November election is not done in November but in October and, though it might be possible to carry it back two or three weeks, if my hon. Friend considers his suggestion of 1st September I think he will see how impossible it is. The electioneering would have to be done in August and even on 1st September, when he wants to poll, there will be a very large number of his constituents away on holiday. It would be outrageous to fix a polling day when a considerable part of the electorate are not able to cast their votes because their holidays fall within that period. Therefore though it might be an advantage to ante-date the polling


day by a week or two, any day before the middle of October, or at the earliest the first week in October, would be entirely unsuitable.
There is a point in the Bill about which I am not so happy. There were two possibilities for the permanent situation. The Home Secretary might have retained the retirement of one-third of the council every year, or he might have gone in for an election of the whole council every three years in the case of the municipal bodies, in the same way as it is for the county councils at the present time. I think the Home Secretary is right in retaining the retirement of one-third of the council every three years, but the question arises as to the transition period and the first election after the time when the councils are again subject to popular election. I think it is the view of the majority of Members who sit with me that it would have been better if the Home Secretary had arranged for what I may call a general election as the first one after the war, and that subsequently there should be the retirement of one-third of the council. If the Home Secretary asks me how I would determine which of the members chosen in that general election should retire, I would remind him that there is in the Bill a proposal relating to that, namely, that Members with the highest number of votes should sit the longest.
I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary on what he said with regard to the soldiers' vote. I am sorry that the investigation has not proceeded far enough to introduce in this Bill provisions for letting soldiers vote directly instead of by proxy. I understand, however, that it is in an advanced stage, and if some scheme can be found which can be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage or if some special Bill can be introduced, I am certain that that would only be carrying out the general wish of the House. I have nothing further to do than to say I am very glad that the proposals which we under your guidance, Sir, thought fit by large majorities to recommend have found favour in the eyes of the Home Secretary and the Government, and that the Bill incorporating these and other things has found favour in the main with Members who have spoken in this Debate.

3.14 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am sure the House will

agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has every reason to congratulate himself on the reception of this Bill by the House. My task is, therefore, comparatively light. I say "comparatively" because on the general question there is much agreement, but it is only comparatively light because there are numerous points on which some of my hon. Friends have asked for information. I should like to deal with the general issues which have been raised and to put clearly and, I hope, simply the Government's point of view. On the first point of assimilation, we have heard speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), supported in part by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), against our suggestion, but it hardly needs any words of mine to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and so many other speakers that we are dealing with the practical problems of the lodger and the grown-up son or daughter in the father's house. When we approach that point we see that the lodger or the son or daughter is contributing, probably in most cases, very directly towards the income out of which the householder pays for his house. There is very little distinction in reality. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh said, the distinction in law can very easily be got round. When we visualise the situation in the first year or 18 months after the war, we see the difficulty which we are all facing, and which we all realise, of finding shelter for everyone coming back from the war. It would certainly be a very poor situation if this country, in that time of difficulty, debarred the people who are coming back from the Services or from other war work from taking part in the local government life to which they so entitled to contribute. Therefore, I claim that the House is practically unanimously with the Government on the first point.
I want to deal in passing with a subsidiary aspect of that point put strongly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) and others, the question of visitors and whether visitors would swamp the local government elections in that part of Sussex. The visitor will be registered at the address for which he or she is registered in the national register


on 31st January or 30th June. It seems difficult to imagine that a holiday visitor will have notified a change of address, as he can exist on a temporary food card from four days to six weeks. That being the position, I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester and those who have shared that fear that they are really fighting a shadow which is very insubstantial and almost transparent.
I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) with regard to the first register. It was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) and the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). During 1945 there will be, first, the May register, and then the annual register that is made in October. I would like my hon. Friends to consider the differences between the two. Under the 1943 Act, there was a register freshly prepared on the occurrence of an election and a long interval of seven-and-a-half weeks had to be allowed for that purpose. Instead of that, we are suggesting that, in the normal course, there will be an annual register on 15th October. I hope that my hon. Friend realises that that will have effect only with regard to an election which will be initiated in the last three months of the year. In the normal year, electors will, in the first nine months of the year, come on to the register compiled on the system of continuous registration, with the consequences of that delay.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is it not really four months and eight months?

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I was taking it from October. He is quite right. It goes back to 1st September, and I should have said "the last four months" and not "three months" of the year. With the principle of the annual register the first eight months are covered and not nine months as I have said. Then we have the special position of 1945, which will be a particularly difficult year, on the basis that everything goes as we hope. I would refer my hon. Friend to the very cogent remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh about the difficulties of going into an election without any registration preparations having been made.

It is considered, and I hope he will agree with me, that our system and our principle for 1945 are sound.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey raised the question of plural voting, and it was referred to also by the hon. Member for Skipton. I frankly recognise that the Bill is a compromise between different views. My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled, and I should be the last to deny her the right, to condemn that side of the compromise which does not accord with the views which she advises. Apart from the general advantage of a compromise on this issue at this time, and apart from tradition and experience, I would remind her that there is something to be said for the expression of the views of certain definite, well-known business localities, and which can be expressed only if the business vote is retained to the lesser extent that it is retained in the Bill. I have always found it interesting, even from the very earliest days of my taking an interest in politics, to see how these special Divisions—the Exchange Division of Liverpool, Divisions in Manchester and in various other parts of the country—have expressed their views. It has not always been in favour of Conservatism, as my hon. Friend will remember. It is an interesting point, because there is a distinctive point of view. If there is an argument for the retention of this vote, it is expressed. I am not going into the matter in detail because I approach this problem on the basis that we have achieved a compromise, which is being carried into effect. I would not like the Debate to conclude without its being seen that there are two definite points of view. I clearly recognise that there is the other point of view, which has been forcibly expressed earlier in the Debate.
The next of the broad questions which were raised was the retention of the aldermanic system. We have had an attack from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). He was sorry, and I am still sorrier, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was not here to hear him, in his aldermanic capacity, attack that capacity itself. Again, I was not aware of any serious complaints about this system, and I certainly have heard none in the part of the country that I know best. It assists in the continuity of our local government, which is an important factor. It gives authority to the chairmen of the


most important committees of our great local authorities, and it enables us all to appreciate and understand who will take the greatest interest and the greatest share in the particular work to which they are devoting themselves. I would have thought that those were considerable advantages in addition to the fact that the system has worked without serious complaint for so long a time; but the Government will give due consideration to the other point of view. Although I cannot hold out any hopes they can, as I say, consider the matter, and devote their attention to the arguments that have been advanced.

Mr. Tinker: I am trying to find something in the Bill where I can challenge the system. If the Solicitor-General can tell us on what part of the Bill we can challenge this aldermanic business, I shall be very glad.

The Solicitor-General: I do not want to trespass on your duties, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that if my hon. Friend would have a close look at Clause 4 (2) it might help him in his nefarious purpose on the Committee stage.
I wanted to deal very shortly with the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Skipton that the provisions of the Bill constitute an attempt to delay the working of the Boundary Commission. Again I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has disposed of that point, but I want to assure the House that there was no such intention in the drafting or the intendment of the Bill. We are very anxious that the Boundary Commission should start to operate as soon as there is a sufficient settling down in the conditions of people, and that its operations may become effective and full of meaning. For that purpose we have allowed a variation either before or after the suggested date, so that the earliest possible time which will give that effective result will be chosen, if possible.
Before I come to the specific points that my right hon. Friend put to me I want to deal very shortly with some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He was a little critical of Clause 5, by which all the co-opted Members, and those elected furthest back among the elected Members, will retire in the election in November, 1945, that is to say, for boroughs. I take that as an example. There are, of course, the

two points of view, as has been said. In the one case there are those who want to keep up the one-third as near as possible, and the other view, which is quite widely favoured, that there should be a local general election at that point. The great advantage of the system that the Government have chosen is that it gives the chance of a wide expression of opinion. As my right hon. Friend said, it will mean that in most cases there will be an election covering half the council at that time. At the same time it maintains the continuity which is important in our provincial set-up of local authorities, and it means that a system is worked out by which the third will then go smoothly on in the future. I know that a great many people have said that through the effluxion of time the councils must be stale, and that they should all submit themselves to the electors. That is the other point of view. We have secured, as I say, that roughly half will submit themselves at once, and we think that will give the local electorate a good opportunity of expressing its views, while at the same time not throwing the local authority into a complete reversal of policy or a complete change at a very difficult time, namely in November, 1945.

Mr. Oldfield: If there are two co-opted members for one ward do they both come off the local authority?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, both co-opted members. If there were three co-opted members for the ward they all come out. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh made. There we had to balance the fact that in one ward all the members might have to go to the poll, and the next ward might only lose one. We felt that the advantage of allowing the electorate to pronounce on those who had been co-opted, because there has been so much said in the Press about co-option, outweighed the apparent disparity of the treatment of one ward compared with another. I hope I have expressed our point of view to my hon. Friend.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the same procedure apply to co-opted aldermen?

The Solicitor-General: Aldermen will come up for election at the first meeting, and a similar procedure mutatis mutandis


will be carried through. With regard to the date, I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, because up to 1939 I had taken part in, I suppose, every municipal election campaign in Liverpool from 1923, and I never found this difficulty about getting the people to come out in the second half of October. In Liverpool—which may be different from other places—August and September are very quiet months. The holidays are spread over the whole of these two months, or certainly to the middle of September, and people only get really into their winter interests by about the middle of October. We have always found that in the second half of October one gets people to turn out, and one gets that interest shown—I am speaking of the one place I know. We could not get people to turn out for an election campaign in the second part of August, with 1st September as the voting day. Of course, we will consider, as we always would consider, the point advanced by my hon. Friend. We know that when he advances a point like that he is speaking not merely for himself but for many people who have consulted him and put the point to him. I wished to show that I have considered it, and to give him my own reaction to the matter, based on the local authority I know best.
I have dealt with the general question of aldermen earlier in my speech, and I will not repeat that. I would like to deal with the three specific points which were put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. The first was that the Speaker's Conference recommended that a man should be entitled to two registrations, one for residence and one for business, and my right hon. Friend wanted to know why that was not in the Bill. After consideration the Government came to the conclusion that there would be great difficulty in carrying out this proposal, as a registration officer would have no means of knowing whether the person had been registered on the business premises register in respect of another area. That was the difficulty in regard to the business premises register. On the other hand, so long as registration is based on the national registration machinery a person can only be registered once as far as the civilian residence register is concerned. It was that practical

difficulty which is responsible for the nonappearance of that decision. If my right hon. Friend or any other hon. or right hon. Member can make any suggestions on that point we shall be only too glad to consider them.
My right hon. Friend's second point was that the conference had recommended a complete assimilation of parliamentary and local government registration, except for peers, and then he asked me whether we had not made a further exception. He referred to the exception mentioned by my right hon. Friend about those who had special local government qualifications, and asked if he had not made a further exception the Second Schedule, paragraph 2. I can reassure him. That paragraph merely preserves the existing law, and its retention is consequential on the decision to allow ratepayers to claim in respect of premises that do not carry the Parliamentary vote. In fact, it is a consequential provision on the second exception which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and not a further exception.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point—perhaps I am asking something unreasonable—has he any idea of the approximate numbers that will be involved in this exception — tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or is it as many as a million?

The Solicitor-General: I have not got that information before me, but before the Committee stage I will see that it is obtained, and if my right hon. Friend or anyone else desires it it will be available, if it can possibly be obtained. I was about to deal with my right hon. Friend's third point, that the conference recommended certain provisions with regard to the university vote. That matter will be dealt with in subsequent legislation. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) will not ask me to pledge myself as to the exact form. That is a matter which has to be considered, but the matter will be considered in the further legislation which my right hon. Friend mentioned at the commencement of his speech.
There were two points of a more or less drafting nature which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). One


was with regard to Clause 16. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked whether that was doing away with the business register. It is not doing away with the business register; it is only doing away with the special preparation of a buiness premises register if an election is initiated after 31st March, 1945, because by that time we shall have the May register, which will be just about in being and will cover the next few months, and from September we shall have the annual register to deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon raised the question of the provisions in Clause 12 (1, b, iv), about the election initiated during the period beginning on 1st January and ending on 9th September in 1946 or in any subsequent year. He drew attention to the fact that the business register would be comprised in the annual register which came into force in the preceding year. I think the House will bear me out, not only in the matter of construction but in the matter of general understanding, that the 1943 Act contemplated only one business premises registter in the year. It contemplated general continuous registration with regard to the civilian residents' register, and, of course, the Service register, so long as it was necessary.
I hope that I have dealt with the main points that have been raised in the Debate; and if there are any points of detail which I have not dealt with, I shall be only too pleased to let any of my hon. Friends who are interested know personally, or in any way that is convenient. I have tried to face up to the main questions which have been raised, and I feel that, after giving the best consideration which I can, I have once again to congratulate my right hon Friend, and to suggest that the House may congratulate itself on providing in a businesslike and careful manner for the problems of making our democracy work. I am sure the House would wish me to conclude by once again thanking you, Mr. Speaker, and the Conference which acted with you, for making possible this Bill and this course, which has commended itself to so many Members of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Drewe.]

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government franchises and the registration of parliamentary and local government electors, and otherwise to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government elections, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses incurred by a Registrar General of births, deaths and marriages for the purposes of the said Act and of any increase occasioned by the said Act in the expenses so incurred for the purposes of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1943');
(b) of any registration expenses incurred by a registration officer under the said Act and of any increase occasioned by the said Act in registration expenses incurred by a registration officer under the Act of 1943 but not including any registration expenses incurred under either Act by a registration officer in Great Britain after the seventh day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five;
(c) to the council of any county or borough in England or Wales, and to the council of any county or burgh in Scotland, of the proportion specified in the said Act of the amount paid by the council on account of any registration expenses properly incurred by a registration officer under the said Act or the Act of 1943 after the said seventh day of May."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY COMMISSION (SURPLUS STOCKS, SALES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to raise a matter, of which I have given notice, dealing with the disposal of certain stocks by the Forestry Commission. I am


pleased that we have started this Debate so early in the afternoon, so that ample opportunity will be given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to make a full reply on what I regard as a very grave situation. On 6th June I put down two Questions to the right hon. and gallant Member, as representing the Forestry Commissioners. The first dealt with the subsidy paid to private landowners to assist them to plant their lands, and the second with the manner in which surplus trees were disposed of by the Forestry Commission and the terms. To those Questions I had very evasive replies. I quote from HANSARD:
Sir G. COURTHOPE: At the present time there are no seedling trees in the Forestry Commission's nurseries surplus to their requirements.
I would remind the House that in a Report by the Forestry Commission, signed by, among others, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, we find this statement:
The area planted during the first winter of the war was but little less than in 1938, but it has gradually diminished to about half the normal figure.
Then there is this pregnant sentence:
Inevitably this has entailed the destruction of much valuable planting stock, which became too overgrown to retain in the nursery, and merely encumbered the ground.
That is at a time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me there is no surplus stock.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: Of seedlings.

Mr. Edwards: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention, because during that season over 4,000,000 seedlings were sold by the Forestry Commission. I wonder why this reply was so evasive. Let us deal with the second part of the reply. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
When there are surplus nursery stocks these are not disposed of to the public but to the nursery trade at prices which are agreed at annual meetings with the trade associations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 1217.]
I want to submit to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that that really was not answering my Question. I asked him what were the terms. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman evades the Ques-

tion, and I must say that this evasion, as I regarded it at the time, led me to the conclusion that it was a matter which required further inquiry, and, consequently, on 20th June, the following Question appears in HANSARD:
Mr. NESS EDWARDS asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what was the last date when prices were agreed with the trade associations; ….
I had this reply:
Sir G. COURTHOPE: The last dates when prices of Forestry Commission surplus nursery stocks were agreed with the Trade Associations was the 18th November, 1943.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman goes on to say:
It was recorded at the time that such prices were not for publication.
I want to know whether or not, if the Forestry Commission makes a deal outside this House, they have the right to refuse to disclose to this House at what price State property is being sold to private interests. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in my view, was being unduly evasive in using an excuse of that sort. He went on to say:
As a trading Department, the Forestry Commission cannot therefore disclose such prices but I shall be happy to hand a schedule of the prices to the hon. Member for his own information.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did that but, across the top of it, was marked, very plainly and underlined, "Not for publication." I want to submit to the House that there was a reason why these prices should not be made public, a reason in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is implicated.

Sir G. Courthope: Personally?

Mr. Edwards: Personally, yes. I asked who, at the meeting referred to, made these prices, who represented the Commission and who represented the trade association, and what did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said this:
As for meeting referred to, the Commission was represented by the Chairman, one other Commissioner and the two assistant Commissioners.
Who was the Commissioner? I asked for that, because there is more than one Commissioner. There is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; there is my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and there is the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). There are


three, at least, that I know. I ask who represented the Forestry Commission, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman again evades it, and leaves me in doubt and fails to give me the information to which I am entitled. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says:
The trade associations concerned were the Horticultural Trades Association represented by their president and other members, and the Scottish Seed and Nursery Trade Association, also represented by members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June; Vol. 401, c. 43.]
But I asked who they were. Why is it, so far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is concerned, that this information, perfectly innocent and legitimate information which this House is entitled to have, was not given in the reply? I did not get the names of the persons, nor did I get the prices made public. This was the second attempt, so again, in my view, the Forestry Commission and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman more or less evaded an issue which I wanted to bring before this House. However, it was true—and I say this in fairness to the Forestry Commission—that I wrote to the Chairman and he supplied to me the names of the members of the trade associations—I take it with the knowledge of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. But he did not supply the names of the Commissioners who attended that very fateful meeting, when these prices were fixed for the disposal of the surplus stocks in the possession of the Forestry Commission.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye has sent me the prices, marked "Not for publication." On Tuesday, 5th December, the same question, about a certain category of trees, is put by an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, and he is given the price which is refused to us. Perhaps I had better quote from HANSARD. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had this Question down:
To ask the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Forestry Commission has entered into any agreement with the nursery trade for the sale of surplus seedling trees; and if so what price per 1,000 is being charge to the trade far two year larch seedlings and what is the cost per 1,000 of raising such seedlings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 394.]
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not tell the hon. Member for Sunderland that the prices were confidential. He gave the prices, and he gave the price

for these seedlings—1,000 seedlings two year larch, including both the European and Japanese species—as 50s. per 1,000, but what I want to know is this, and I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has disclosed in this House, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Sunderland, information that was only supplied to me as "Not for publication." I want to ask you, Sir, whether or not I am justified in using in this House a document marked "Not for publication," some of which has already been quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and whether I should be entitled to quote from that statement submitted to me.

Sir G. Courthope: I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker: I think that, as the document has been made public, it can no longer be regarded as private.

Mr. Edwards: I would be glad if someone could enlighten me why this document was marked "Not for publication" before the Question was put down by my hon. Friend opposite.

Sir G. Courthope: I will tell my hon. Friend.

Mr. Edwards: There will be ample time for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell me. What does it disclose? Two-year Scotch pine have been selling at 15s. per 1,000 to the trade. Two plus two has been selling for 70s. per 1,000—less than 1d. each. Some of these, I suppose, will be merged into the Christmas tree trade, and trees which have been sold for a penny each are now being sold in the shops, around which the soldiers' children will dance, for 5s. and 6s. each. I am not saying that the whole of this trade is in this category. I am saying that some of it will be merged into that category. I have some further information about the Christmas tree trade passed to me from another source. Take the prices of Japanese larch—one year's seedlings, 20s. a thousand; two plus one and two plus two, 75s. a thousand. I hope that the House will notice—as I am bringing in this in an interesting instance later on—that the price of Japanese larch, two-year seedlings, plus two-years transplant, are 75s. per thousand. There are one or two other interesting things. Norway spruce, all sizes, are 60s. a thousand or ·7 of 1d. each. Those gentlemen who


have been planting their woodlands and who have been buying trees from the ring will know what prices they have been paying. I have heard of cases of land-owners paying as much as £10 a thousand for trees supplied through this ring.
I will follow it one step further. I have quoted the prices for these nursery seedlings and nursery stock that have been fixed by the Forestry Commission and the trade association. Let me give an example of what has taken place. An hon. Member on this side of the House has given me permission to use both his name and his documents. I refer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson). This hon. Member wrote to the Forestry Commission, after all this talk about surplus trees and stories about trees being burnt, to ask if they would supply him with trees for transplanting. He had this reply:
With regard to your inquiry re larch plants, it is regretted that the Department is unable to supply and it is suggested that one of the following firms may be able to meet your requirements.
Three firms are named and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, being a middle-course man in many things, wrote to the middle firm, and the middle firm is the English Forestry Association, Ltd., of Reading, of which, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something.

Sir G. Courthope: I am its chairman.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is the chairman of the directors of this private firm to which the Commission, on which he sits in virtue of representing this House, advises a potential customer to apply in order to buy larch trees. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor sent an order to the firm of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He asked for 2,000 larch trees. This English Forestry Association, Ltd., has its place in Reading. Within a week he receives, not from Reading, but from Cowbridge in South Wales, 2,000 larch trees by passenger train, having been gathered, cleaned, packed and conveyed to the railway station by the Forestry Commission. A few days later he receives an invoice from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's firm for £17 10s. for 2,000 larch trees. He does not complain. He pays the, bill, and eventually we begin to

look at the problem. What is the problem? It is that the Horticultural Association's representatives and the Forestry Commission's representatives have agreed upon an uneconomic price for these articles, and the lower the price, the higher is the profit that can be made by the firm forming this horticultural ring. I am talking about the period when this transaction took place, whatever has happened since, and I should imagine that there has been a fluttering in the dovecots since notice of raising this question was given.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is very interesting. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) paid £17 10s. for 2,000 trees. Can he tell us how much that association paid to the Forestry Commission for the same trees?

Mr. Edwards: I asked my hon. Friends when I mentioned the prices of larch trees to keep the matter in mind.

Mr. Davies: Are they the same?

Mr. Edwards: Seventy-five shillings per 1,000, £7 10s. for 2,000, and the association sends a bill for £17 10s.—a profit of over 140 per cent. for trees they have never seen; which they have never handled, for an order which they have never solicited. At an expense of, I suppose, two or three 2½d. stamps, they pull in £10 [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the bankers."] Bankers do not sit in this House and represent their own interests on Commissions, appointed by this House, and that is the position of my right hon. and gallant Friend. This is not a small thing. Let me quote the size of this trade. In the season 1941–42 there were 159,000 of these trees sold by the Forestry Commission to the ring. No one else could buy them. The public could not buy them, They could only be brought through the ring. In 1942–43 there were over 3,500,000 and in the following season there were over 5,000,000. How much of this was passed direct to the public without the participation of the firms, the firms sending the invoices and scooping the pool? What is the size of that trade in which the firm do not interfere at all except to pass on the order and to receive the cheque back from the customer?
In the 1942–43 season there were over 500,000 trees and last season there were nearly 1,250,000 trees, gathered, cleaned, packed and despatched by the Forestry Commission, and private firms gather the swag, or take the cream off the milk. I was interested to find out how it had been arranged and I obtained a list of the representatives of the horticultural association or firm, who met the Forestry Commission. Lo and behold, I found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits on one side of the table, representing this House, and his general manager sits on the other side representing his firm. [An HON. MEMBER: "A nice arrangement."] It may be a nice arrangement, but I want to submit to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not the kind of arrangement that ought to have the approval of this House, and in view of the fact that, as the result of that arrangement, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's firm makes such a substantial profit without rendering any service, that it is an arrangement which ought to come to an end very quickly, in the interests of this House.
Let me go one step further. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has also been a party to the issuing of another report—the Post-War Forest Policy (Private Woodlands) Report issued in January, 1944. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is therefore a party to saying that one of the uncertain factors of the future causing private landowners to be cautious as to what they do, is "uncertainty as to the rates of wages" and that the "cost of plants" has been another disturbing factor. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman admits and agrees with this, but his firm has been responsible, as a result of an arrangement to which he has been a party as representing this House, for making 140 per cent. profit on a transaction they have never seen. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot come to this House and say that the prices of the future are uncertain and then, behind the scenes—and I say advisedly "behind the scenes"—fixing a price——

Mr. Speaker: I really think the hon. Member is going a little outside the bounds of Order. On public grounds the Forestry Commission may be attacked but I do not think one can attack the right hon. and gallant Minister in his private capacity as chairman of a company.

Mr. Edwards: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to do anything that is unfair. What I want is that the House shall have before it, very clearly, the facts of this case, and the House must then draw its own conclusions. I think the facts are clear. This House has appointed representatives on the Forestry Commission——

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I agree, but one must not impute unworthy motives to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as the chairman of a private company.

Mr. Edwards: I do not want to impute motives, I want the facts themselves to disclose the state of things, and I do not wish unnecessarily to attack the personality of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. There are the facts, a state of facts to which this House ought not to continue to give its approval. The House is as much responsible as the individual who represents the House.
I have here the bill. What did the Forestry Commission charge for gathering all these trees, cleaning them, bundling them, packing them, and conveying them to the railway station? What they charged was 4s. 6d. for 2,000 trees. I want to submit that the Forestry Commission is not adequately representing the interests of the House in this matter—a sum of 4s. 6d. for gathering 2,000 trees, digging them up, cleaning them, tying them up in bundles and conveying them from the nurseries—some miles, if I remember the exact location of the place—to the station in Cow-bridge and putting them on a passenger train to Ross-on-Wye. I do not want to impute any wrong motives to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am satisfied that this is a case in which this House is entitled to a full and complete reply. The facts, as disclosed, are extremely disturbing and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to satisfy us on the question. One other point before I sit down. In reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to-day——

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Why 4s. 6d.? That seems to be an interesting and puzzling amount. Is it really put down on an invoice that for cleaning and distributing 2,000 trees a charge of 4s. 6d. is made? How did it appear?

Mr. Edwards: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had made it clear. This is what appears on the invoice sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor:
2,000 Japanese larch, two year and one year—£17 10s.
Packing—4s. 6d.
Packing was not done—I must be careful—by the English Forestry Association Ltd., but by the Forestry Commission"—
Carriage to railway—16s.
making a total of £18 10s. 6d. that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor paid for these 2,000 larch trees and, according to the answer given in this House by the representative of the Forestry Commission, all that the firm paid to the Forestry Commission was £7 10s.

Colonel Clarke: Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead) rose——

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has not quite finished his speech.

Colonel Clarke: I wanted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that these were two-year and one-year seedlings. I presume, therefore, that they would be only one inch or two inches high, quite small things, and would require very little packing or anything else.

Mr. Edwards: I am not concerned with how big or how small they were.

Colonel Clarke: It would make a considerable difference to the price. Trees are all prices. If these were only one-half inch to two inches high, 4s. 6d. might be very reasonable.

Mr. Edwards: There may be substance in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, but one has to remember this, that £7 10s. worth of these seedlings were packed together but by the time they reached Ross-on-Wye they were worth £17 10s., and to cover all this, the charge was only 4s. 6d. I think I had better leave the position where it is. I am very anxious that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye shall have ample opportunity for replying, and I hope that he can satisfy this House that its interests are being adequately taken care of on the Forestry Commission.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Storey: I do not want to intervene on the somewhat personal question that has arisen between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Court-hope) who represents the Forestry Commission. I think that my hon. Friend has performed a useful service in calling attention to the prices at which trees are being sold to estate foresters from the Forestry Commission surplus. I want to confine myself not to the price which is being charged by the nursery trade, but to the price which the Forestry Commission are themselves charging to the nursery trade. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate called attention to a Question which I asked recently, and which elicited the reply from my right hon. and gallant Friend that two-year larch seedlings were being sold at 50s. per 1,000. That, I would submit to the House, is too high a price. It may seem a low price compared with the price which is being charged to private foresters but when the Royal English Forestry Society tell me that these seedlings can be raised at a cost of 20s. per 1,000 I suggest that 50s. per 1,000 is too big a price for the Forestry Commission to charge and, moreover, one which is not in the best interests of our national forestry.
The Forestry Commission has two main functions. Its principal function is to create our national forests, and its second function is to encourage estate forestry. The chief practical aid which the Commission has been able to give in the past is a planting grant of £2 to £4 per acre, which is inadequate. It is true that the Commission has made proposals which, should they be adopted by the Government, would be of great benefit to private forestry, and it is also true that these proposals still await adoption by the Government. I submit to the House that in the meantime the Forestry Commission should do everything it can to assist the private forester. It is in the country's interest that it should do so. It seems to me, therefore, that one thing it can do is to dispose of its surplus trees to private foresters at the lowest possible price. If it can raise trees at 20s. per 1,000  should pass them on to the private forester at cost price, plus something for handling.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Direct.

Mr. Storey: Either direct or through the nursery trade. If the Commission is going to charge 50s. per 1,000 for trees which can be raised at £1 per 1,000 it is easy to see that the planting grant is absorbed by the excess charge which the Forestry Commission is making to the private forester. I suggest that the Commission should definitely sell its surplus trees, either direct to the private forester or through the nursery trade, and in doing so should charge no more than the cost of producing those trees, plus a reasonable charge for handling them. The proper way for that to be done is for prices to be fixed in consultation between the Forestry Commission, the nursery trade and representatives of the forestry societies. If that were done I think the Forestry Commission would be doing useful work by helping private foresters to replant in advance of the time when a more adequate grant will be made available, as we hope it will, by the State.

4.24 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I would like to say at once that I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in spite of the little stones he has thrown at my head, has rendered a useful service in raising this question, because neither the Forestry Commission nor anyone else concerned in this business is satisfied with the prices which are now being charged. In order to clear up the situation a little I want to begin by explaining what is obviously not clear to some Members in the House, namely, what is meant by the terms "seedlings" and "transplants." A seedling is a tiny tree growing in a seed bed, and seldom exceeds four inches in height for each year's growth. When it is transplanted into a nursery it becomes a transplant and a "2 year, 1" and, in due course, a "2 year, 2," if it is not out in the woods in the meantime. During that time, there is a good deal of handling and a certain amount of loss, and all the time there is continued exposure to the chances of the weather and the many pests which attack young trees. I wanted to clear up that point because of the question which was put just now, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), about 2 year transplants which might be only a few inches in

height. The 2 year transplant of most varieties, is probably anything from one foot in height, and have been transplanted two years previously.
I hope the hon. Member for Caerphilly will not think that by dealing with the methods adopted by the Forestry Commission in connection with transplants, I am trying to evade the personal issue. When the Forestry Commission was first started, rather more than 25 years ago, an informal agreement was made with the nursery trade, which was a well-organised body, that, primarily, the plants in the Forestry Commission's nurseries which were surplus to requirements should be offered, in the first place, to the nursery trade. If the Forestry Commission started dealing direct with estates, and selling surpluses to them, it was thought that this would soon break the nursery trade, and the view taken was that so long as the nursery trade were reasonable, and played the game, they should have the handling of surplus plants. There was another reason why the Forestry Commission would have found it difficult to sell direct to woodland owners and foresters. It was that although the Commission might have large surpluses of one variety, it could not ran its nurseries to ensure a saleable surplus of every variety. Questions have been asked in the past by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) about the charge in certain areas, and I had to tell him that during the two years concerned there was no surplus of the particular varieties he mentioned. This system worked quite well till the beginning of the war, and I do not think there was any very general complaint about it or about prices. It had always been arranged that the Forestry Commission should sell its surplus plants to the trade at the same rate as that at which the firms in the trade agreed to interchange plants with each other. The nursery trade have what is called a wholesale rate, by which a firm which has a surplus sells to another firm in the same organisation which is short of trees. The Forestry Commission has always sold surpluses at those same rates to the trade.
The war, however, caused a great deal of difficulty and disturbance. A great many plants have had to be destroyed, particularly those of a more ornamental nature. A great many growing stocks


which were in excess of requirements, also had to be destroyed and that, naturally, put up to a considerable extent the price which certain Lurseries had to charge for the plants they had, which were saleable, if they were to avoid a heavy loss. The nursery trade brought their agreed prices to the Forestry Commission, and during the last two years, the Commissioners have expressed the view that those prices were too high. We did not have a selling organisation, and we could not form one in a hurry, so we accepted the continuance of the old arrangement for one year only. The prices mentioned by the hon. Member were mostly within the last two years. I do not think they were recorded until then, and two years ago we were given to understand that they were for one year only. At that time, there was a general hope that the war would not last quite so long as has been the case, but the difficult period has continued, and again, this autumn, prices were brought by the nursery trade to the Forestry Commissioners and, in many instances, were considered excessive. On 13th October we again met them and stated that we should have to consider whether a new agreement was necessary because we thought the trade were charging too much, not only for plants they got from the Forestry Commission, but for plants which they grew themselves.
The Forestry Commission stated three principles which I would like to read to the House if I am not wearying hon. Members. They said:
The Forestry Commissioners have reviewed their nursery policy and have put the following conclusions before the Horticultural Trade Association:

(1) The Commissioners regard the supply of adequate numbers of plants of good quality and at reasonable prices as essential to the development of forestry.
(2) It is important, in order to secure the rapid habilitation of woodlands, that no plants which are suitable for use should be destroyed.
(3) The Commissioners do not desire, or intend, to participate in the general nursery trade provided the two preceding desiderata can be otherwise secured."

The representatives of the trade were asked to come to another meeting which took place this morning. I am very glad it did take place, because it has cleared up the situation a little and has enabled me to deal to-night with one or two points

of the hon. Member's statement which, otherwise, I might have hesitated to deal with. One was the question of the price list—the wholesale prices agreed by the trade for the transfer of surplus stocks between themselves from one firm to another. They have never published them. The Forestry Commissioners only know of them because they are brought to us, and we have agreed to use those same prices in transferring our surplus to the trade. But as a result of this morning's meeting, we have been able to arrange the publication not only of these prices but of the schedule of retail prices under which members of the trade have undertaken to sell to the public, both their own stocks and the stocks they get from the Forestry Commission. That is a thing for which we pressed.
We have also arranged with them that there shall be a further meeting between the members of the Horticultural Trade Association and the Forestry Commission to try to provide some better means by which the public may be supplied as cheaply as possible with the surplus plants from the Forestry Commission. It is easy to see how difficult it would be, and what confusion would be caused, if the Forestry Commission were selling their surplus to some trade firms, at a price quite different from that which the trade firms were charging for their own products. That would want a good bit of consideration, because the Forestry Commission do not, as long as the trade plays the game, wish to put the nursery trade into the bankruptcy court by competing with it in the open market. That would be very undesirable.
In the ordinary course of working, one is bound to provide for possible losses, and so on, in the sowing of seed and the lining out of seedlings. The result is that in certain varieties there is a surplus in most years and during the last two or three years the Forestry Commission have deliberately increased the surplus, so as to provide a large stock ready for planting at any time that the war might come to an end and labour become available, for planting on a more extensive scale. We have increased our nursery acreage from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres at the very time when, owing to the shortage of labour, our planting programmes were being reduced and, as a result, we have at the present moment—and shall have again next year and every year until the


war ends—a very considerable stock which is surplus to our own requirements. That is inevitable. Part of that surplus stock, which is passed on to the trade in the way I have described, has led to these complaints and, as I have said, the Forestry Commissioners think that the prices in many cases are excessive.
During the planting season 1942–43, 2,250,000 seedlings and 1,500,000 transplants were sold to the trade by the Forestry Commission, and in 1943–44 the number had grown to 3,333,000 seedlings and 2,000,000 transplants. The wholesale or retail prices which are in force
During the current planting season are to be published, as I have said. The greater the publicity given to that fact, the more I shall be pleased, because there may be some firms who will not be guided by their Association and may attempt to make undue profits.
I think I have made it clear that the Commissioners' main function in this province is to assure that adequate plants at reasonable prices are made available for planting. In their view, this can best be achieved by the co-ordination of all requirements and all sources of plant supplies—then I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). In future we propose that the private planter shall take part in the discussions between the Forestry Commission and the trade. I have not the slightest doubt that the private planters will be drawn from the forestry societies, who are best qualified to deal with the subject. It is, obviously, a difficult problem to have two different sets of prices, as there will be, but it is one that we intend to tackle and overcome if we can.
I come now to the point with which I, personally, am concerned. I hope the House will accept from me that I had not the least idea that the English Forestry Association's name was being suggested as a suitable supplier to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. This was originally a co-operative society formed amongst landowners by a well known forester and I have been a member of it ever since it started. It was formed to try to maintain supplies of plants for woodland owners. It is true that it became a private company, the reason being that so long as it was a registered co-operative society, no one could subscribe for more than 200 shares, and there were certain

members of the society, of whom I was one, who were prepared to put up more money as we saw a future in it. It is still a member of the Horticultural Trade Association and is bound by their scale of both wholesale and retail prices. The £17 10s, was the minimum price at which the rules of the Horticultural Trade Association allowed its members to retail that particular variety. I was shown by the general manager, who told me what had happened, a letter in which he protested that the price was excessive and asked for sanction for the association to reduce the price to what they regarded as a reasonable figure. It was refused and, as members of the Horticultural Trade Association, the price fixed as the minimum was charged.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is blackmailing the public.

Sir G. Courthope: I agree that prices are much too high. My Association and I have protested more than once, but we are not in a position to break away at a moment's notice and sell nothing but what we have grown ourselves because, like others, we are very short of certain varieties. But I hope that a more reasonable arrangement will be made. One must, however, take into account not only the actual cost of producing 1,000 larch seedlings, but the cost of producing many thousands of other things which have to be destroyed because there is no market for them. If a firm took no account of its losses, whatever the proportion of loss might be, they would soon be in bankruptcy. That is the excuse put forward for charging a range of prices which, I admit, is too high. The hon. Member complained that he could get no information as to the surplus of seedlings. They are not saleable in June, and one does not know in the least what will be the production and what kind of stock they are likely to get.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Edwards: Does that apply to two-year seedlings?

Sir G. Courthope: I was dealing with the question of the supply of seedlings, and the answer that I gave on behalf of the Department on 6th June was that we had no surplus to dispose of. By the autumn we had a considerable quantity—several millions—and we have an even larger quantity now.

Mr. Edwards: Not at £17 10s.

Sir G. Courthope: The hon. Member will see the published prices when they come out. I do not think they will give him any cause for dissatisfaction. He asked me who was the Forestry Commissioner other than the Chairman. Mr. Taylor is a technical Commissioner in the whole-time service of the State. I do not think any of the unpaid Commissioners were present on that occasion. The hon. Member thought I had been evasive. I think I have explained the cause of the evasiveness—that these were figures arrived at between different firms in the trade and, though they were in my hands, I was not in a position to publish them until I got permission, which I only got this morning.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why he refused the prices to me, and gave them to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey)?

Sir G. Courthope: I had quite forgotten that I gave my hon. Friend this information. I refused to disclose the schedule of prices, which I had in my hand, and which was marked "Not for publication." I may have given the hon. Member an individual quotation out of it. I do not like figures which are not for publication. I think they should all be published in the widest possible way. That, I think, is the whole story. I am not happy about my own personal position, but I think I should be wrong in retiring from the chairmanship, and to some extent the control, of a body which for a good many years has been doing useful work. I hope there will never be any reason in future for the complaint to be made of the profits that they are making in selling Government stock.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (ACCOUNTS)

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The point that I wish to raise has to do with the accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. I gave what short notice was possible to the Air Ministry of this being raised at the earliest possible moment. As, unfortunately, they have been unable to send a representative, I am afraid that I shall have to speak rather more gently than I might have done if the Secretary of State or his representa-

tive had been present. I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind and that, if what they hear seems to be a small matter, they will realise that that is largely due to the fact that the ordinary courtesies of debate make it incumbent on me to refrain from saying anything too strong or too personal.
Nearly a year ago I drew attention to the fact that singularly little care was being exercised in the appointment of persons to positions of great responsibility in various Departments, and I gave several examples of great public disadvantage that has resulted from the absolute lack of scrutiny into the qualifications and character of people appointed to these high positions, where in many cases they had control of very large sums of public money. More recently I raised a matter which has been the cause of the greatest distress to the vast bulk of all ranks in the Royal Air Force, a matter which they regard as a blot upon the fair escutcheon of that magnificent Service. Not only that, but the events to which I made allusion have done a grave injury to Air Force discipline, inasmuch as offences were being committed at a certain station through which nearly the whole of the air crews passed sooner or later. The effect upon discipline can be imagined when air crews, passing through that station, discover that airmen and non-commissioned officers get into serious trouble and that their officers escape scot free, and not only escape, but are promoted and given special favours, and that ultimately a number of those guilty of offences find themselves in extremely well-paid positions outside the Air Force, positions into which they are allowed to get by the Air Ministry itself.
The immediate matter which concerns us to-night is that of the accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. I raise it in connection with these other matters because it is a most unfortunate fact, as certain Members of the House and many members of the public are well aware, that the officers mainly responsible for those grave irregularities in that unit of the Royal Air Force are now mainly responsible for the conduct and expenditure of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Let us see why these accounts come before the House. British Overseas Airways Corporation was set up under a Statute of 1939, Section 22 of which provides:


The Corporation shall keep proper accounts and shall prepare a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State shall direct.
Sub-section (5) provides that
the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any such statement and report before each House of Parliament.
The accounts are made up annually from 31st March. Up to the present, and only after considerable pressure had been applied to the Secretary of State, we have only got the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1943. Immediately after that date, a new board took over the concern. We are still waiting for the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1944.
I want the House to understand that, so far as the 1942–43 accounts are concerned, there is no reason to suppose that, even if they were put in a form which the public and the House could understand, they would disclose anything but quite satisfactory figures. What I object to is that they are presented in a form which nobody can understand, and which gives no true view of the position of the Corporation. I do not think the House will disagree with me when I say that, under the present management of that concern, it is highly desirable that the accounts should be presented in a form in which the House may know what is being spent and what is being taken out of the Corporation's funds by some of the gentlemen concerned. All I ask is that the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1944, may be presented in a very different form from those of the previous year. Hon. Members will agree that a balance-sheet which has been certified by Messrs. Whinney and Company may be taken as correct in form and as to the figures. The firm is one of the highest standing in the profession, and we may take the figures as correct in so far as they are figures which can be checked by the auditors, because, necessarily, in all accounts of public companies, the auditors have to take for granted certain figures, and in their certificates they protect themselves against having been betrayed into making false statements.
As anyone who has had to deal with accounts knows, a balance-sheet is really not a very valuable document. A much more important document in the affairs of any public company is the profit-and-loss account. The banks, until the last 20 years or so, were accustomed to pay more attention to a customer's balance-

sheet than they ever paid to the profit-and-loss account. To their discomfort, they have found out that a balance-sheet shows a great deal about the fixed assets which may at any time become completely valueless. It does not give the really important point to a lender, namely, a knowledge of the profit-making capacity of the concern. All the banks now like to see a customer's profit-and-loss account rather than his balance-sheet. The only thing in the way of a profit-and-loss account which has
been presented to Parliament in the case of British Overseas Airways Corporation is called "The Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production Account for the year ending 31st March, 1943." That account has been presented to Parliament—presented very late, but, still, presented in the end. I object to the form of the account. When a company gets into trouble one of the things the auditors look for first are the items and amounts which are lumped together. That lumping together of expenditure or receipts inadvisably and improperly has led before now to accounts being sent to the Public Prosecutor by liquidators.
To me this is a perfect example of the worst type of profit-and-loss account that any company could possibly produce. Let us take one or two examples of the way in which things are lumped together. Take the item of £816,222, which is put down as
general administration, including that attributable to Ministry of Aircraft Production and sundry losses due to enemy action.
Presumably, it includes all the costs of the central organisation, the salaries, expenses and other pickings of the officials concerned, and they are lumped together with "losses due to enemy action." Let the House consider what a false view of the situation that may give. The losses due to enemy action might have been £1, and the other items in this sum would then be £816,221. On the other hand, the cost of general administration, including that attributable to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, might have been £1 or it might have been £816,221. The House has no means, therefore, of finding out whether the costs of central administration are exorbitant or otherwise. I hope to convince the House that in some respects they are extremely exorbitant. The item only refers to central administration because we get a previous item——


Route expenditure including cost of operations and regional administration, £4,910,019.
So it is clear that the regional organisation does not come into the figure which I first mentioned. Presumably, it is only the central administration which is concerned. We have no means of knowing how to split up losses due to enemy action, which may be enormous or may be nil, and ascertain the actual charges for the administration itself.
I have just pointed out one or two items which, I say, are presented in such a way that the House of Commons cannot tell what is happening. I may say that the House of Commons has been very anxious to find out something about this question of administration charges, and a number of vain attempts have been made by hon. Members to extract from the Secretary of State for Air a statement as to salaries and expenses allowances to some of the senior and most important officials concerned. We have never been able to get it. Now we want to know what salaries and expenses are paid to the Air Commodore and the rest of his friends whom he has imported into British Overseas Airways. Mark this: One by one, experienced officials who were there before, technical, commercial and otherwise, are being displaced: In many cases they are resigning voluntarily because they cannot stand the present state of affairs. Their places
are being taken in many instances by ex-officers of 54 Group, some of whom have been guilty of the greatest irregularities, when they were under the command of Air-Commodore Critchley. There is absolute chaos on the engineering side, for instance, where they have displaced the experienced engineers, who were there before, with their own nominees; and so it is with other departments concerned. Nobody on earth, except those who are inside the organisation, knows what amount of money this particular group of persons is getting out of the Corporation.
When I say "getting out of the Corporation," I mean of course getting out of the public purse, because that is where all the money comes from. The particular account which I have brought to the notice of the House ends by giving gross expenditure of £8,254,310, from which it quite rightly deducts such items as revenue

from other sources, interest on capital redemption, and payments from associated companies. Those items amount to £2,183,682, and a figure of £6,070,628 is the net expenditure. There is a note stating that revenue arising from carriage of mail, etc., has not been taken into account. The value of this revenue amounts, in the aggregate, to approximately £3,721,194. I admit that I do not quite understand why this amount is put like that, instead of being embodied in the account itself. Anyway, it means that the real balance is £2,349,434, all of which has to come out of the public purse. There is no other source. I do not think that the representative of the Ministry can deny that at least £2,349,434 has had to be provided by the Air Ministry to make the account balance.
I quite admit the force of the Scriptural injunction that one must not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn, but we ought in this case to be able to find out what proportion of the corn goes to the ox and what proportion to the proprietors of the threshing floor. Whether the ox is eating the whole of the corn we cannot find out. And since we are the guardians and trustees of the threshing floor the House of Commons ought to insist upon knowing the essential facts about this Corporation. This account says that the balance excludes obsolescence and is the
cost of services rendered to the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State for Air.
The first thing that is obvious is that whatever the balance is, it is always the cost of the services rendered to those Ministries. If the balance were £60,000,000, it would still be the cost of services rendered, and no matter what extravagances had been perpetrated or however inefficient the organisation, the public would always foot the bill. The cost will always appear as services rendered to the Ministries concerned, whatever the size of it may be. I hope there is some explanation for this state of affairs because, certainly on the face of it, it appears that this account has been drawn up in such a way as to give rise to the suspicion that the House of Commons is deliberately being hoodwinked.
Let us have a look at the sort of thing we find happening. The Secretary of State for Air has the appointment of the Director-General of the Corporation, and


has, let us suppose, made that appointment. Suppose the Director-General had a salary of £6,000 or £7,000 a year, and he was also given an expenses allowance—a far greater allowance—free, of course, from Income Tax. In these days you will notice that there are many patriotic gentlemen who are perfectly willing to take quite low salaries in Government employment, provided they can get the expenses account, because salaries are subject to Income Tax and Super-tax while expenses are not subject to any taxation at all. Quite moderate expenses might prove very much more remunerative than quite big salaries. In the case in question, I have reason to believe that the expenses allowed are absolutely gigantic. There is no other word for it. Suppose property is acquired by the Corporation at exorbitant prices. Suppose aircraft for the use of senior officials are fitted with the most expensive fittings. Suppose the personal servants of members of this Corporation are put on the wages list of the Corporation. Suppose officials of the Corporation when they fly about the world conduct their own businesses as well as the business of the Corporation.

Sir Percy Harris: Would it not be much better for the hon. Gentleman to make his charges directly rather than to make these insinuations? He may be quite right in what he says, but would it not be fairer to the House of Commons to say directly that he accuses these people of these things?

Mr. Hopkinson: As the matter is in the hands of an Under-Secretary who has only just taken office, I do not think it is advisable to make any direct charge. All I can say is that these particulars have been received from a very respectable firm who vouch for their correctness. I have not been able to check up, in the time at my disposal, on these particular points. Let us put it much more generally. Let us say that we have reason to believe that a very large salary and a very large allowance for expenses has been granted, certainly to the Director-General, and as far as my information goes to other officials of this Corporation, and that as we are not allowed to know what that salary and those expenses amount to, we cannot tell in the least whether this Corporation is being con-

ducted properly or not. That is the whole point——

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask a question? I agree with the right hon. Baronet that it would be much more worthy to come right out and attack Critchley, which is what the hon. Member is trying to do, but in regard to the statement that the Director-General, who is Brigadier-General Critchley, goes about the world in B.O.A.C. aeroplanes, conducting his own business, if he has any business it is the greyhound-racing concern. Will the hon. Member name any country in the world to which he would be flying at the present time and where he would conduct greyhound-racing business?

Mr. Hopkinson: I can only repeat that my source of information is a reputable one, and that I am told that on a recent visit to Stockholm, a representative of a firm who is no longer employed by the Corporation was taken over for that particular purpose. I have asked for an inquiry into these matters. I asked for this definitely after making a series of charges which the Secretary of State for Air admitted in toto. I asked for a full inquiry to ascertain whether my charges were correct or not. That demand has not been granted. If it is, the evidence shall be marshalled, because people will then be protected from victimisation from which they could not be protected under normal procedure, while they are in the Air Force.
Here again, I can only say that my informants, a very reputable firm, tell me there is a whole suite of rooms kept at the Dorchester Hotel for these people at the expense of the Corporation, and that the monthly bills amount to very large sums of money indeed, sums which make an appreciable hole in the resources of the Corporation itself. All this trouble need not arise if the Secretary of State would answer the question, What are the salaries and expenses allowances, tax free, which the Director-General and those members of the Greyhound Racing Association and those members late of 54 Group Training Command of the Royal Air Force at Regent's Park now receive? That seems to me a very reasonable request on the part of Parliament. We are trustees of the public money. Every penny has to come out of the public


purse. Why should we not be allowed to know this? Is there anything to conceal? I think it is only reasonable that some of us should be suspicious.
The Secretary of State has taken refuge more than once in something called "Security," as if the enemy's General Staff would get valuable military information if they learned what salaries and expenses are being paid to these gentlemen by this Corporation. Security is like liberty—a good number of crimes are committed in her name at the present time. It is ludicrous to pretend that any reason of security should prevent the House from being told such simple facts as I have mentioned. Under the Act the Secretary of State is responsible for seeing that proper accounts are kept, and that proper people are appointed to these positions of great responsibility, where large sums of public money are handled.
It might be said that the Secretary of State might be trusted to carry out the will of Parliament with the most meticulous care in order to ensure that only the most suitable persons are placed in these positions in control of large sums of public money. I suggest there are reasons why one might feel a slight lack of confidence, I will not say more, in respect to the degree of care which the Secretary of State has exercised in this respect. Brigadier-General Critchley is really in control of this organisation, because it is preposterous to suggest that Miss Gower and a superannuated trade union official are really the sort of people who can check the activities of a very brilliant person like Brigadier-General Critchley. I have the honour of a very slight acquaintance with the lady in question. I know she is a brilliant airwoman, and is one of the most courageous and likeable persons I have come across in the course of my flying adventures, but to call on her to deal with very complicated financial matters of this sort is just absurd. I think she would find it extremely difficult to pull up the Director-General and say, "I am not quite satisfied with the way you are disposing of public funds."

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Commander Brabner): Does the hon. Member include Sir Harold Howitt among the people whom he would appear to consider lightweights on the Board of this Corporation?

Mr. Hopkinson: Sir Harold Howitt belongs to a very well known firm of auditors, but he is put in a very awkward position by this appointment, because his firm happen to be the auditors of the Greyhound Racing Association.

Mr. Baxter: Why does the hon. Gentleman leave the Chairman out of all this? Lord Knollys is a responsible man, yet the hon. Gentleman keeps attacking Brigadier-General Critchley.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I ask, as one who has known Sir Harold Howitt for 25 years, whether The is directly implicated in this? I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member is saying, but where are we being led? I have known Sir Harold Howitt since he was Governor of Toynbee Hall 25 years ago, and it is monstrous to suggest that a person of his qualities should be brought into this discreditable picture.

Mr. Hopkinson: Sir Harold Howitt has been put in a very difficult position. I have nothing against the firm. They happen to be my auditors, and I have the highest opinion of them. But I think it was very hard lines to put him in this unfortunate position. There is, of course, the question of how much is exposed to the auditor. We do not know; the accounts do not show.
When the Secretary of State announced this appointment to the position of Director-General in this House, I rose and asked what qualifications this gentleman had got, and had the Secretary of State made any inquiries into his previous activities? The reply was that he was such a good and great man that any inquiry of any sort was totally superfluous. That was from the Secretary of State, who admitted he had taken him over from his predecessor without any inquiries at all. His predecessor made the appointment originally to this Training Group of the Royal Air Force. I saw the late Secretary of State about the matter, and he told me that he had not made any inquiries, that the appointment was made and that it was too late to do anything. I gave him one or two facts which I thought he ought to investigate. Again, when this present appointment to B.O.A.C. was made, I saw the present Secretary of State, and gave him a list of things which had been brought to my


notice by hon. Members in this House and by other reputable people outside, eliminating everything about the correctness of which I had any doubt, and making such allowance as I could for prejudice of one sort or other. Whatever may be said about people outside, Members of this House cannot be regarded as totally irresponsible people, particularly when they are dealing with matters affecting the public interest.
When this information was conveyed to me, I checked it as far as possible, and gave the Secretary of State a very considerable amount of information. I will not say what that information was, because it may be incorrect. It was given to me in good faith and received by me in good faith, and I suggested to the Secretary of State that he ought, at any rate, to ascertain through Scotland Yard or any of the regular channels whether that information was, in fact, true or not. In actual fact he made no inquiries of any sort so far as I can find out. The information concerned was such that in many instances it could have been easily checked by those who had access to those channels of information to which I have referred.

Mr. Baxter: Did they include any murders by this man?

Mr. Hopkinson: No, only a suicide. I am afraid I read the Secretary of State a little lecture on the primary duties of Ministers of the Crown; and the terms of the lecture were such that relations between us have been somewhat strained ever since. It seems to me that one of the first duties of a Minister of the Crown is not to put the control of immense sums of public money into the hands of somebody about whom he knows nothing and about whom he refuses to make any inquiries, who has been handed over to him by a predecessor who also refused to make inquiries.
The accounts of this Corporation do not enable us to form any opinion as to the conduct of its affairs. That is the real ground of my complaint. I daresay that I might have treated the Secretary of State with more tenderness if I had known, as I know now, that he was on the books of Regents Park all this time, and was receiving from the firm supplies of foodstuffs which were the property of the airmen of the unit. He admitted this.

Mr. Reakes: Why raise it again?

Mr. Hopkinson: For the simple reason that results of the thing are still going on. The account book suddenly comes to an end on a particular date. That is the date when it was known on the station that inquiries were in train. These food offences are trifling—about the same thing as when a baby steals a lump of sugar from the sugar basin. I definitely chose those paltry little offences in order to see whether the House of Commons was assiduous enough in conducting its public duties to take the matter up without my disclosing anything further—without disclosing, for instance, that apart from the food sold and, as the account books showed, paid for, and paid into the proper account, there was also an account showing the food that was not paid for. I have not mentioned that.
We have not got to the end of this story, by any means. Certain people on this station became suspicious. They communicated, in a rather roundabout way, with the Food Ministry. We are going back to the end of October last year. The Food Ministry sat on this, and thought about it. Then an officer of the station, whose business it was to look into these matters, became suspicious, and communicated with his superior authorities; and they gave him authority to go on with his investigation. The Food Ministry was approached by the appropriate department of the Air Ministry. I asked, when I raised the matter in this House, whether these offences were offences against the Food Regulations. The Air Minister said, "Certainly they are." The offences were perfectly clear, because the original licence for the production of food at that station was granted by the Food Ministry only on condition that the food produced was for the consumption of airmen in the unit. The account book of the unit shows that these things had been going on every week for months.
In due course the Provost Marshal of the Air Force ordered an inquiry to be made, by his own officers. An inquiry was made, and it disclosed a lot more besides the sale of food. It disclosed, for instance, what I brought up in the House the other day, when it was admitted by the Minister that packages of foodstuffs were entered up as "operational papers"—and operational papers coming from a


station which was not operational. That was a bad slip. If they had just made it, "Urgent; to be delivered to the Air Ministry," it would have been all right, but they made a slip in calling them operational.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Gastronomical operations perhaps.

Mr. Hopkinson: No doubt. Eventually the Provost Marshal ordered a summary of evidence to be taken. Two of the officers concerned had to be asked to leave the station, because they were interfering with what was going on; and they left the station. Eventually the summary of evidence was completed, about the second week in May of this year. Four officers were cited as suitable candidates for a court-martial, including the commanding officer of the unit, who is also a director of the Dog Racing Association, and another officer, who, so far as I can make out, has an American record that is not all that one would expect from the holder of the King's Commission, and whose name does not appear to be the name under which he went in America. That court-martial was to take place early in July. At the very last moment it was stopped. I then saw the Secretary of State for Air, and I told him quite plainly that, as there was documentary evidence, it did not seem to me to be right to stop a court-martial which was practically in full swing. Not only that, but officers and other ranks of the Air Force were getting a little annoyed to find that the offences were not being dealt with adequately.
An undertaking had been given to the Food Ministry by the Air Ministry that the inquiry would take place and that the offenders would be dealt with properly by the Air Force. What was the punishment? Three officers were seriously reproved, two of them actually reproved by the Air Council—of whom at least two members had been on the book of the firm for a considerable period. But the reproof did not go very far, because one of them, on subsequently retiring from the Service, was allowed to keep, not his substantive rank but his acting rank—within a few weeks of being reproved for offences admitted by the Air Minister in this House, and being under the severe displeasure of the Air Council. All this seems almost incredible—at least, I hope

it seems incredible—nevertheless, it is the fact.
By question and answer, and by raising the matter on the Adjournment, I have got an admission out of the Secretary of State on every charge that I have made. It is admitted that the food offences took place. He admits that he himself was on the books, that regular weekly and monthly payments were made over a long period, also members of the Air Council, and officials of the Air Ministry, whose names I have not yet given, but definitely concerned, with this group of the Air Training Command, and other officials directly or indirectly concerned. All this has been admitted, and what has been done? The officers concerned have been treated with very special favour. Some have been allowed to leave the Air Force to attend to their businesses, whether these businesses are certain classes of financial work or dog racing, or they have been transferred to the British Overseas Airways Corporation at salaries and expenses allowances at a rate which nothing on earth could get out of the Secretary of State. They seem to be having a very good time of it indeed.
I say that these offences were comparatively trivial; but what I think is a very serious thing is interference with the course of justice. When it was found that the court-martial was not going to proceed, I gave an opportunity to the Secretary of State of saying why. I said that I should raise the matter in this House unless this court-martial was allowed to proceed, and if I found any more members of 54 Group being appointed to highly-paid posts in the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The Secretary of State then told me that he took legal advice, and that his legal advisers had said that everything was all right and that no court-martial was warranted.
Here I want to put a challenge to the Air Minister. My information is that the summary of evidence noted that four officers should be court-martialled. I gave the Minister the particulars. The evidence was conclusive and did not need witnesses, because it was documentary. All that was required in the way of evidence was a copy of the food licence from the Food Ministry and the account book which showed that food had been sold outside the station. Therefore, the case


was perfectly clear. What happened to the witnesses we do not know. All we do know is that some of them spent some little time in one place in the West End of London during that inquiry, and that place is the offices of the Greyhound Association. After that, they were not quite so ready to come forward as they had been before.
My information is this, and I hope the Minister will take it down and will say whether it is correct or not, that, when the Deputy Judge Advocate-General of the Royal Air Force advised, on the summary of evidence, that a court-martial was warranted against four officers, he also advised, as far as I can make out, that a court-martial was also warranted in the case of Air Commodore Critchley himself. Air Commodore Critchley, when the inquiry began, had just left the Air Force. His resignation was ante-dated three months, and he was outside the purview of Air Force law. Therefore, if the Deputy Judge Advocate-General of the Air Force suggested that he should be court-martialled, the Deputy Judge Advocate-General was wrong, because he was outside the scope of Air Force law, the minimum period having elapsed, and by quite a long time. What made it a longer time was the fact of his resignation being ante-dated three months.
The next point is that, in the Debate, the Secretary of State said that the Deputy Judge Advocate-General's opinion was supported—of all people in the world—by the Treasury Solicitor. I have made some inquiries from the War Office and the Admiralty whether there was any case on record in history where the Treasury Solicitor had been called in to confirm the findings of the Judge Advocate-General on whether a court-martial was warranted or not, and I got the reply that there is no such record. What is the position of the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in such a matter? He is the highest legal authority that the Commander-in-Chief can consult in matters of court-martial cases, and what is his position to be if he finds that a civilian solicitor, with no locus standi in the Services, is called in to confirm whether a court-martial is warranted or not?
I venture to suggest, and I am merely asking for information, that there was some mistake made by the Secretary of State, and that, on the summary of evi-

dence, the Treasury Solicitor was not called in on the question whether certain officers should be court-martialled. I cannot help thinking that there has been some mistake and that the Treasury Solicitor was not called in until very much later in the affair, when other persons, besides serving officers in the Air Force, found themselves involved in the matter and they were consulting the Treasury Solicitor to ask him to get them out of the hole. That is not an accusation, but merely a request for information. I asked the Secretary of State what was the date when the Treasury Solicitor was called in, and he told me that it was some time in June. I think it is highly desirable that the House should know which statement is correct. Was the Treasury Solicitor called in, as the Secretary of State says, presumably, in perfectly good faith, to decide whether the Deputy Judge Advocate-General of the Royal Air Force was right or not in deciding whether certain people should be court-martialled or was it the case that the Treasury Solicitor was called in on another matter?
I think the House would like to know a bit more about these things, and I hope the Secretary of State can give a satisfactory reply at the present moment. I hope the Under-Secretary will realise that the House will not expect him to be able to trace all these complicated things over a long period of months and improvise a perfectly satisfactory answer, and, therefore, I think that the matter might be left over, unless he has absolute and specific information to give to the House to-day.
Here we have a Corporation, supported almost entirely by public funds, whose accounts are presented to Parliament in such a form that one cannot judge whether or not gross extravagance is being exercised by those who control it. We have also found that officers, who had certainly not added to the credit and reputation of the Royal Air Force during their stay there, being involved in all sorts of messes and scandals, are now officials of the British Airways Corporation. The efficiency of the Corporation is suffering thereby, because some of the former officials have got sick of the whole thing and have gone to other employment. For the junior officers, there is no other employment; they have got to stick it.
When the appointment was made, at that time, the Secretary of State was seriously compromised by the activities of


this particular group, and sundry other officials were compromised also. Therefore, when the Secretary of State comes down to the House and says that it was the officers concerned who demanded an inquiry and who insisted on this thing being shown up and exposing it and so on, it is very interesting to know exactly the sequence of events, and whether, on 20th October last year, when these officers demanded an inquiry and an exposure of what had taken place, it was already known on the station that inquiries were being made into this particular offence and the Food Ministry was receiving anonymous letters on the subject. It is also interesting to know the nature of the inquiry demanded. Was it an inquiry into the irregularities in question or into something quite different? Again it would be interesting to know who were the officials of the Ministry who conducted the inquiry. Were they or were they not officials who were customers of the firm? All those things I would like to see swept out of the way, and they can perhaps be swept out of the way absolutely if the affairs of British Overseas Airways Corporation are properly investigated and appropriate action taken. There is at the head of it as Chairman a nobleman and a gentleman of the very highest reputation who I do not suppose has ever had any experience of this particular substratum of society for which he is responsible at the present time. I do not suppose for a moment that Lord Knollys appreciated the possibility of having to deal with this.
As a first step, may I ask for an undertaking from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1944—the first year of the new regime—shall be presented promptly to this House? It is now nearly nine months since the year ended and that is time enough to produce the accounts. They should be presented to the House in such a form that the House may know whether this particular group of persons are conducting the affairs of the British Overseas Airways Corporation in the same way that they conducted the affairs of 54 Group. The thing is pretty serious. It is known outside this country perfectly well. Air-Commodore Critchley took the opportunity a few weeks ago of abusing the Americans without any justification whatever. The grounds of his abuse were

not true. He accused them of incompetence and inefficiency in a direction in which they are notoriously much better than we are, and that only causes resentment. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the American authorities are well aware that the gentleman in question who went out of his way to insult and abuse them is not the sort of person whom we in this country would regard as a suitable medium for preserving an amicable state of affairs with our great Allies. Therefore we owe it not only to ourselves and to Parliament but also to our American Allies to go into this matter and make certain that the whole thing is clean and above board. If the suggestions which I make can be proved, even in a small degree, appropriate steps should be taken to make an end of this scandal in our midst.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: It does seem to me that, while the privilege of every Member of this House to say anything he likes without coming under any strictures and to be outside legal machinery should be preserved, the hon. Gentleman has gone far beyond his privilege as a Member of this House to-day. I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I appear to be suggesting that you did not call him to Order and that therefore you justified what he has said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I accept no responsibility for what an hon. Member says. An hon. Member does that on his own responsibility. My job is only to see that he keeps within the Rules of Order.

Mr. Baxter: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I feel rather bitterly on this subject, because General Critchley is a very old friend of mine. It is a friendship which has not been broken by quarrels. He is a decent fellow. He is not only temperamental, but demonstrative. It has been said of Critchley that he never lost an enemy. That is true. But it is more or less equally true to say that he has lost very few friends. I served on his staff during the last war for a while, and he was a first-rate and an honourable officer. I learnt a lot in serving under him and I was proud to serve under him. Subsequently, after the last war, he threw up what looked like a brilliant military future. At 28 he was a brigadier in the


Regular Army. He threw it up to try to do business for the Empire. He had big ideas and lost more or less the money he had, and got into difficulties, which were perfectly honourable and merely the failure of endeavour.

Mr. Hopkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean in Mexico?

Mr. Baxter: I do not propose to go into any of these things at all. The hon. Gentleman can use his many pet phrases. His slimy trail has filled this House this afternoon, and I am not prepared to add to that slime. I can tell the House what I knew about this man at the end of the last war. His administrative capacities were so genuine and his energies so great that he had a good career in France. In 1917 every Canadian officer under the rank of major who came to this country had to come to his school at Bexhill. He was a first-rate administrator, indeed, so good an administrator that, finally, the Royal Corps, which I think was then entering into the Royal Air Force, appointed Critchley to run the whole of the Air Force cadet training scheme at that time. I am proving nothing, but I maintain that when a public servant has his character impugned by such a statement as has been made to-day, I am entitled to do something on his behalf. [Interruption.] I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) that I am out of Order in doing this.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Surely it is not really a question of the hon. Member telling us what his own personal views of General Critchley's character may be. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has made charges of a very grievous nature. Whether those charges are true or not, can no doubt be proved by the Government spokesman completely throwing aside the charges made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a question. It seems to be a sort of prolonged interruption.

Mr. Baxter: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure that you of all men will agree that, if the privilege of this House is used to attack a public servant who cannot defend himself, it is equally the privilege of an hon. Member to defend that man if he believes that he

should be defended. Critchley, after the war, took up greyhound racing. I do not decry greyhound racing. Taking to dogs is not a good way of making a living but it appeals to masses of the public and makes a lot of money.

Mr. Hopkinson: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt for one moment? I do not think he is giving us the proper history to go straight from Sandling—which was the particular place he left—to greyhound racing. What transpired in the interim period in Mexico?

Mr. Baxter: I shall not bore the House with the details of Critchley's activities. I want to come to this. As this war approached, he prepared a splendid and vast scheme for training Air Force cadets. When many of the rest of us in public life were not prepared, Critchley was working on it, and he had the whole scheme ready. The late Sir Kingsley Wood accepted it at once, and the present Secretary of State for Air in this House has paid tribute, not once but three or four times, to the energy Critchley put into this, and the tremendous strength it proved to the Royal Air Force. I think these things should be said.
For reasons which I cannot quite understand, at one moment the hon. Gentleman opposite speaks of this comic opera business in Regent's Park as piffling offences, as nothing at all, like a beggar stealing a piece of sugar out of a bowl, and at the next moment as so grave, that courts-martial should be held. The pendulum of his reason swings from side to side, never knowing when to stop. I cannot tell, for the life of me, whether he thinks that it is the gravest military offence ever committed, or of no importance at all—he said both 20 times over.
Then another thing. The hon. Member dealt with Critchley and the greyhound staff going to B.O.A.C. I had no idea that this was coming up on the Adjournment, and I have not been briefed in any way by anybody to-day, but five or six months ago I lunched with the directors of the B.O.A.C. On that occasion Critchley told me that there were altogether two people who had gone with him from the Greyhound Racing Association—one was a commissionaire, the other was his personal secretary. I believe that


to be true. I do not know whether the position has altered since that time but that is what it was then.

Mr. Hopkinson: Would the hon. Member allow me? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, to my knowledge.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman counts from one to seven; I can go on—8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Mr. Hopkinson: As far as I know, seven was the full number from 54 Group and the Greyhound Racing Association.

Mr. Baxter: Then seven. Then these seven greyhound officials—messengers, or something like that—are replacing expert engineers and traffic managers? It is a ridiculously false picture we are having to-day. Finally, the hon. Gentleman deals only with one man—the Director-General—surrounded by food offenders from Regent's Park and by greyhound trainers, or some such thing.

Mr. Hopkinson: No, directors of the Greyhound Racing Association.

Mr. Baxter: I see, directors of the Greyhound Racing Association. The only one he has with him to my knowledge is Wing-Commander Walter Wilson, a staff officer of the highest experience and character, a flying officer in the last war, a man who has followed Critchley's career wherever he has gone, and has been a great help to Critchley, a man of the utmost honour and probity, with a fine military record behind him in the last war, and a useful one in this.
To conclude I want to say this. The hon. Gentleman opposite speaks with harshness, yet I think he is entirely right to express dissatisfaction with that balance-sheet. That I accept entirely, and I am sure the House does too. The expenditure of public money should be scrutinised most carefully by this House, and no reputations or friendships or enmities should stand in the way of that being done. But why suddenly treat the Director-General as if he is not to be trusted, as if he is to be a man in complete charge and then, suddenly, with a lowering of the voice, almost with reverence, speak of Lord Knollys, the Chairman, as if Lord Knollys knows nothing of it? Why does not the hon. Gentleman

stand up and say, "How dare we have a Chairman so inept, so innocent, so unworthy that he does not know what kind of balance-sheet is going out under his signature? "I think the whole thing this afternoon has been a contemptible, cowardly bit of enmity and malignant clowning on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

5.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Commander Brabner): I must first apologise for not being in my place when the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) raised this question, but I had no warning that it was to be taken on the Adjournment and, while I did have a warning that it might be taken on the Consolidated Fund Bill, subsequently that was found to be out of Order. I have had absolutely no opportunity of briefing myself to answer the hon. Gentleman's accusations. Therefore, I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, through you for the consideration and possibly the sympathy of the House in doing what I can to make a case against the whole gamut of allegations made by the hon. Member.
I listened with the greatest interest—I may say I was almost enthralled—to the tale of misery and woe which he put before the House. I understood the hon. Gentleman originally to raise questions of the validity of the B.O.A.C. accounts, but a large part of his speech was, in my view, devoted to rehashing the Debate on an Adjournment Motion which he had taken some weeks ago and which I felt—and I thought that the House felt then—had been completely dealt with, and extremely adequately, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. Be that as it may, there are a number of things which I would like, most respectfully and humbly, to put before the House, not in detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because I cannot do that now. However, I may say that if he likes to make these allegations on a future occasion I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in answering every single one of them in the greatest detail. There is an answer and it can be given, and I apologise to the House for not being ready with it to-day.
First, it seems to me that as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has said we have this continued and malevolent attack upon the Director-General of B.O.A.C.——

Mr. Hopkinson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask if it is in Order to attribute malevolence if a Member attempts to do his duty to the public? What is your view?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman mind repeating his question?

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think quite accidentally, attributed malevolence to me, in bringing up this matter, and it does not seem to me to be quite in Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might remind all hon. Members of the House that there is a Rule that we should not impute motives to anyone on any matter.

Commander Brabner: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I seem to have transgressed the Rules of the House, but the hon. Gentleman has made a prolonged attack upon the Director-General of the B.O.A.C. I feel that he is dealing with a man in a vacuum. I cannot conceive that Lord Knollys and Sir Harold Howitt are so gullible as to have all the wool that this hon. Gentleman has brought to this House pulled over their eyes time and time again. The hon. Member opposite has testified to the high qualities of Sir Harold Howitt and the hon. Member for Mossley said that Sir Harold Howitt's firm audits the accounts of the Greyhound Racing Association——

Mr. Hopkinson: And mine.

Commander Brabner: And the hon. Member's own, but I cannot see how any gentleman of that calibre can be expected to sell his soul for the ability to audit the accounts of the Greyhound Racing Association. It seems incredible to me. Therefore I feel that sooner or later we must give B.O.A.C. a chance to get on its feet without these continued aspersions on the activities of its members.
There is one further point, and that is that there is a direct chain of responsibility—and I confess to speaking upon this as a back bencher myself. At one moment the House is asking for a number of free and competitive companies to run the air affairs of this country; next, the Secretary of State sets up an organisation and says "This should be responsible to me solely and not to the Air Ministry, and I will appoint a Board of Directors who are entirely free and independent to do what they like——

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Blathers.]

Commander Brabner: This Board of Directors has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Air. They are responsible only to him for the efficient running of the Corporation. They appoint the officials of the Corporation, and the Director-General is appointed by the Board of Directors. So far as I am aware, the Secretary of State for Air has no responsibility at all for the officials of the Corporation.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Act of 1939 lays it down that the Secretary of State shall make these appointments, which he did and which he announced to the House on 20th May, 1943.

Commander Brabner: I accept that, but the fact is that though he appoints the Board of Directors, that Board was given a free hand to get on with the re-organisation of the Corporation. That is the Secretary of State's responsibility. He is responsible for the Board of Directors, and they are responsible for the Corporation. That, I hope, will deal with the question of the responsibility of my right hon. Friend for the Directors.
On the question of accounts, there is nothing sinister or wicked about the fact that they are not yet ready. I think I am right in saying that they will be ready early in the New Year. The difficulty is that collection has to be made from all corners of the world of all the pennies and halfpennies which go into the Corporation's coffers, and that takes time. It is, however, being done with reasonable efficiency, and, as I have said, the accounts for 1944 will be ready early in the New Year, which is about the same delay as has occurred before. I would like to make a further observation about these accounts. It is clearly quite, impossible for the accounts of Transport Command to be discussed in this House. I do not think any Member would come here and suggest that there should be an inquiry into the affairs and internal administration of Transport Command. I suppose I ought to be careful about describing B.O.A.C., but whatever its status as a


Corporation it is entirely engaged on war work and, therefore, subject to all sorts of military hindrances and so on which would render the accounts quite valueless, even if they were produced, unless Members knew the entire facts which lay behind the accounts.
May I give one illustration, which I think will be pertinent? B.O.A.C., instead of being able to range the world to buy aircraft best suited to their job, have to accept and operate whatever aircraft the Air Ministry can afford to give them, at whatever expense, having regard to the military situation. To give an example which does not appertain now, I think I am right in saying that B.O.A.C. were using, at one time, some Whitleys for transport work. Anybody with experience of flying knows how utterly unsuitable those aircraft are for any sort of commercial, passenger or transport work or, indeed, for operational work, as the crews who flew in them at the beginning of the war know. The Corporation was given these aircraft and had to use them, whatever the cost in petrol, man-hours, crews and safety.
Unless an extremely long and detailed statement, which is quite beyond the power of any Ministry in war-time, were given, the accounts would be utterly valueless. Naturally, as the aircraft situation improves the quality of the aircraft which they have to use will be far better, and they will become much more a commercial corporation in the true sense of the word. The detailed accounting of any air line is a very complicated and heavy business. It is quite impossible for these accounts to be put out by B.O.A.C. or the Air Ministry with the staff available in time of war. The hon. Member is complaining of delay in getting out the balance-sheet and accounts which we already have, but they would not be out for another two years if we had to give in detailed breakdown all the figures he has requested. The staff is simply not there to do it. A lot of water will have to flow under the bridges before it is possible to induce the Minister of Labour to give us the accounting staff to do this, or there will have to be very great inducements to produce the accounts in war-time with the staff available.
I have asked for the indulgence of the House on coming to this Box for the first

time, but I make no apology for having been a critic in the past of our operations in the air. It is clear that this is one of the most serious and important international questions in which this country will be engaged after the war. Since I have been at the Ministry I have taken the trouble to call for a report of all complaints, or the reverse, which have been received by B.O.A.C. in the last 18 months. I also called for criticisms, and I got them. If the House will not think me indelicate, one of the only criticisms that people took the trouble to write in and mention was that they thought there should be a down draught rather than an up draught in the lavatories of aircraft, because it would be an improvement to the passengers concerned and possibly to the general convenience of all who were travelling. Seriously, that is one of what I might call even the major complaints that have been received. Against that I have an immense document relating to all sorts and conditions of men who have travelled by B.O.A.C. all over the world, and it is not everyone who is well treated who, when he has had a comfortable journey and has enjoyed it, takes the trouble to write and thank the company. It is only the man who is disgruntled and gets a rough time who thinks the company is rotten.
I thought we should have a great pile of letters saying how bad the company is. It is quite the reverse, unless the hon. Member suggests that the machinations of the Director-General are such that he suppressed the correspondence, but that is not what I have been able to unearth up to now. I would like to read the comments of a gentleman who is well known to myself, a very senior and powerful admiral, who was carried about the world by this service at a time when he was extremely ill. I found by chance a letter from him in this great document. He is a man who is not liable to mince his words from time to time, and he writes:
When convalescent I was flown home by British Overseas Airways Corporation to this country last Wednesday. I simply cannot thank enough all concerned in the Corporation for the efficient and sympathetic way in which they organised and attended to my comfort and well being.
He goes on to mention certain names of officials of B.O.A.C. I would like to mention the proprietor of a powerful


American newspaper who travelled by the B.O.A.C., and wrote saying how comfortably he was treated, what attachment he will now have for the particular aircraft that he flew in, and of the immense consideration with which he was treated. This is a large docket, and I would be happy to go through it with the hon. Member afterwards, but I will not bore the House with it any longer. It contains 70 or 80 pages of congratulations on the operations of this Corporation. Therefore, I would suggest that this is a service which is vital to this country, for better or for worse. Whatever our views about the private operation of air lines and so on, this is a service which is carrying the British flag all over the world in time of war in competition with other nations. This is one of the best ambassadors—or the worst—that we can possibly have.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While the hon. and gallant Gentleman is on this international point, will he say whether there is any control over what the Director-General says in public? I am referring to his speech the other day, which was a great shock to many people.

Commander Brabner: I think I am right in saying that it was a great shock to the Director-General, and that he has been left in no doubt that such effusions are quite out of order and that they will not occur again. There is no question about that. That is why I say that this is an organisation which is our best, or one of our worst, ambassadors. I think that it has improved immensely in the last 18 months or two years. There is no com-

parison now with what it was two years ago. I therefore suggest to hon. Members that we should give it a chance to get on its feet and to show the British flag in an efficient and proud way wherever it operates. We should give it a chance to settle down without these continual attacks on the staff. They are most unsettling to everybody concerned. I am not concerned at the moment, because I have not a brief, about the rights or wrongs of the particular allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. I am not in a position to answer now, but I will do so on some future occasion. Let us give this Corporation a chance to work in an efficient and powerful manner. Let it settle down and do its job. When it has had a chance to get on its feet, then let us come to the House and make criticisms about how it is run, how it is organised and whether it is doing the job we want it to do, and not keep on with these petty pin-pricks as to what happened in a certain unit, or as to who goes dog racing and who does not, and so on. Incidentally I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy about the results from the Greyhound Association and that they are a source of immense revenue year after year. I am not going to be drawn into an argument regarding their activities. Let the B.O.A.C. be given a chance to do its job, and perhaps it might be discussed in a more high-minded and sensible way at a later date.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Six o'Clock.